500 words a day on whatever I want

Africa: the last 13,000 years

Chimamanda Adichie, who warns us against the danger of the single story!

The following is based mainly on chapter 19 of Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” (2005) – with his racist framing taken out:

The best way to understand the last 13,000 years in Africa is to look at its languages – particularly at the words people use for the plants and animals they eat. Throw in archaeology and glottochronology and you can work out who was where when and why.

The native language families of Africa:

Language families of Africa, c. 2000

Afro-Asiatic: from Ethiopia. Spreads to most of North Africa and the Middle East. Ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians, Somalis, Arabs, Jews, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Berbers, Tuaregs, Moors. What the Bible calls the sons of Ham and Shem. Copper and iron tools. Native plants and animals that could be domesticated: sheep, goats, cows, donkeys, camels, wheat and barley. Suited for dry lands with winter rains.

Nilo-Saharan: from the Sahara, which from -9000 to -4000 still had lakes, game animals and real grass. Were farmers before the Egyptians. Today they live on the remaining grasslands south of the Sahara. Mali and Songhai empires, Timbuktu. Copper and iron tools. Native: sheep, goats, cows, sorghum, millet. Suited for dry lands with summer rains.

Niger-Congo: from West Africa. From -3000 to +500 the Bantu branch spreads across most of Africa south of the equator. Native: African rice and yam, kola nuts, oil palm, guinea fowl. Suited for wet lands and summer rains. Later took on dry-land farming, cows and iron from Nilo-Saharans and Afro-Asiatics. Could make steel. Resistant to malaria, which their farming spreads. Livestock resistant to the tsetse fly. Does not spread into the south-western corner of Africa due to its winter rains.

Khoisan: from eastern and southern Africa. Now just in south-western Africa with pockets in East Africa. Their languages have clicks, which some Bantu languages, like Xhosa, have picked up. (Some of the Xhosa in South Africa also look part Khoisan.) Native plants and animals that could be domesticated: none. Hunter-gatherers, stone tools. Some started herding cows and sheep a few hundred years before the Bantus arrived.

Pygmies: from the middle of Africa, where they can still be found here and there. No longer a language family – they now speak the languages of nearby farmers. Native plants and animals that could be domesticated: none. Hunter-gatherers with stone tools.

Remaining Pygmy peoples to give you some idea of their old range in -3000

The Bantu Expansion: From -3000 onwards the Bantus “engulfed” the Pygmies and Khoisan. Jared Diamond uses “engulfed” because we do not know just what took place, like interbreeding, conquest, expulsion, killing or epidemics.

Why the Bantus?

Afro-Asiatics were held back by the summer rains (not the Sahara).

Nilo-Saharans, despite their empires, were held back by the tsetse fly, which their horses were not resistant to.

Pygmies and Khoisan were held back by the lack of native plants and animals that could be domesticated.

Present-day range of the tsetse fly – which is close to the Niger-Congo range

The Austronesian Expansion from South East Asia reached Madagascar between 300 and 800. It brought bananas and Asian yams.

The European Expansion reached south-western Africa in 1652. Their Afro-Asiatic plants were suited to the winter rains.

Im in agreement, Someguy and Abagond, while their genes and culture may have differances , which I cant break down now, they are phenotype black enough to be persecuted by the klan…and any other discrimination against black people anywhere…for sure here in Brazil , if they were born and raised here

While they have kept much of their black appearance because they have remained in the tropics, they are in fact more distantly related to, say, West Africans than Europeans are – because they were among the first to leave Africa.

Just from looking for pictures for this post it became apparent to me that Pygmies are way more dehumanized than other Africans. The cold white gaze in full effect. It took me way longer to find a good picture that would fit in with the others. (Niger-Congo, on the other hand, was by far the easiest. So easy I had to stop myself from putting up Oluchi or Genevieve Nnaji as “unfair”).

Just from looking for pictures for this post it became apparent to me that Pygmies are way more dehumanized than other Africans. The cold white gaze in full effect.

Also, the cold Congolese, Tutsi, and Hutu gaze, to cite but a few additional examples.

“The Twa of Rwanda and Burundi are treated by both Hutu and Tutsi as completely inferior. Eating, drinking, and intermarrying with the Twa is unacceptable to the vast majority of Hutu and Tutsi; even sitting and talking with them is often forbidden, and they have frequently been dispossessed of whatever land they held without this being seen as theft.”

Great map , Abagond, and, I would like to show that the Africans below the Sahara, were in touch with certain principles and concepts that are unique that area despite people that might think inspite of differant tribes and areas and migrations, something very special was happening in below the Sahara Africa with the phenotype black Africans. Here is a youtube of the San people, and they are doing a very basic 6/8 slow groove all the way through, maintaining that pulse :

Abagond, if I am off topic about this, please let me know, I think its extremly relevant, but, I would respect totaly your opinion. Its about culture and understadning each of these people desctibed here, makes their culture extremly relevant

My computor gliching made me type real fast…I mean, that there are people who talk about the differant cultures in below the Sahara, but, I say there is a common thread….not that everything is the same, but, similar concepts….and these concepts arnt common to all dark skinned people on the Earth, it is a wonderful thing that came from the dark skinned people ( meaning the San and Pygmies too), and, it just has to be dealt with by the anthropologists and arcealogists…they need to listen with their ears and see with their eyes

The Bushmen, San and Pygmies are all suposed to be the different group from the Bantu, and I can bring in huge amounts of drumming from Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Uganda, Congo, that all have these concepts, and I beleive we are talking about concepts that are thousands of years old that have evolved

The San for example, arnt drumming, it was hard to find them drumming, but the groove and claps and dancing that they are dealing with is very related to many other black African concepts

Abagond, and all the commenters on this thread this is indeed a great education for me. It also teaches me that you have to be careful where you get your information from. It’s important for me to know what is accurate.

For me too, Mary, it is a constant evolving learning experiance to go much deeper into a culture that brings incredible ancient knowledge to the table , than the normal history books and scholars tell us. There is huge amounts of buried treasure and knowledge to be discovered .

Dr Ani, a marvelous educator who talks about being in touch with this ancient knowledge, ancient black African knowledge and concepts, and she is in touch with the reality of being in a state of mind coming from this knowledge , and the strength someone can gain from it and how it has been supressed.

Lets face it ,Chistianity, Islam, the West and the Arab world has gone in, built their beliefs on top of these concepts, buried over these concepts, and tried to destroy them .

If any one looked at that Nilo Sahara youtube, you see them talking about things in those concepts that arnt in Islam, and then you see them building pyramids in the end…..pyramids ! Did they get it from Egypt or was it the other way around…

There is so much treaseur to discover about the people who brought these concepts into the world and created the first civilisations

I went into Kwamla’s site once and there was a link about a huge very ancient civilisation that was built around the gold trade in a place in lower Africa I dont remember. The evidence was overwelming that it was a large civilisation who built a lot of walls and streets and they might have been 10,000 or more years old….there is so much we just dont know…and there are some very deep concepts of how to look at and live life that are not ackowledged in present day society.

The world knows about transcendental meditation, yoga, chinese marcial arts , many things are starting to be discovered by the Western world as great knowledge and concepts to live life with , especialy in the cold scientific , weighed down and supported by religions, but, these concepts arnt really talked about or understood the real power to be harnesed from it. At the most, by way of the incredible fact that black African slaves brought their culture with them and it ended up dominating every country they were brought to, the West unconciously has regulated it to Dick Jane and Sally , candy bubble gum enetertainment in their lives. They go to a disco, go to a rock show, most all informed by these concepts, and have an incredible time , its their social pop lives, they feel good…but have absolutly no idea the depth that lays behind these concepts that the pop world of their lives barley touches on…they have no idea where it came from or what it really is, they dont ackowledge it and they have no idea of the real power behind it .

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlQLpc_cfBg) Here is something from North Africa and you can see they still are dealing with a groove feeling on the bottom but there is an introduction of Arab type melodies on the top….this is the mixture that starts to define it differant as some of the youtubes I brought in above..just to note it. This doesnt mean I think one is better than another, its just that we should understand the differances to get the total meaning and concept that each culture has to offer

Senegal…..these two clips start to really show the depth complexity and power of the more advanced concepts that I think the below Sahara brings to the table. On the Senegal clip, you have to go in about 3 minutes and it really gets intence….I can barely follow it and Im a trained musician…the counter point, syncopation , pollyrythms etc…virtuostic

(sorry to inundate the thread with all these youtubes, but, I think they can really describe what the thread is trying to get at about the variations and mixes you can find in Africa….youtube is so great when it comes to actualy studying culture)

I think I read , from a link someone gave on here the other day (sorry I forgot who) about the farmers in Africa , because they were able to stay in one place , raising their crops, unlike the hunter gatherers, who had to be on the move, these farmers could then organise standing armies, organise to govern, trade etc

The link from Kwamla’s site about the huge ancient community built around gold mining, was just mind blowing , I mean it was big and ancient. And makes me think we know so little about what really happened, and, Western history books arnt going to really tell us

“Why is this post different? What was the title this morning? Where is the information about blacks in certain regions being a new thing?”

This post was named “How Africa became black”. That is the name of the chapter in “Guns, Germs and Steel” it is based on. But race in this case is a mystification – it makes it harder not easier to understand the last 13,000 years. It was better to just leave it out.

Jared Diamond does not regard the Khoisan and Pygmies as black. Therefore when the Bantus engulfed them, Africa “became black”. Diamond regards only the speakers of Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan as being mostly black. The other three language families he counts as mostly belonging to other races.

The Hutus are racist? What a shocker! Does that excuse anti-Pygmy racism? Does that excuse white racism or something? Do you look up to Hutus? Or are you expecting me to give equal time to Hutu racism, which does not directly affect anyone I know?

“Classification schemes pigeonholed them into categories defined as narrowly as possible…whilst expanding definitions of Caucasoid groupings as broadly as possible.”

Tell me about it! I think separating the Khoisan from other blacks into a separate race like Jared Diamond and Carleton Coon do is part of the same thing. The Khoisan are genetically the closest of anyone alive to the first Homo sapiens sapiens, so they need to be denegrified as much as possible. Like calling Obama half-white or biracial even when he regards himself as black. The genetic distance between the Khoisan and other blacks is not big enough to put them in a separate race. It is no worse than between Greeks and Anglo-Saxons.

It’s been a while since I read GG&S, but I think you miss the point about Jared Diamond’s classifying people as black or not black.
“Black” is a social construction and it is not really about colour. Whether or not Americans would regard Khoisan or Afro-Asiatics as “black” is not relevant to this discussion. You need to momentarily take off your American sense of what “black” means, because it’s not useful when talking about the diverse populations of Africa.

Diamond’s classifying Northern Africans as white/Caucasian is a bit oversimplified, but it is undeniable that there is a significant amount of West Eurasian genetic input in the Horn of Africa, with some Ethiopians being genetically just as “white” as they are “black” (again, those terms are social constructions).

“I think separating the Khoisan from other blacks into a separate race like Jared Diamond and Carleton Coon do is part of the same thing. The Khoisan are genetically the closest of anyone alive to the first Homo sapiens sapiens, so they need to be denegrified as much as possible. Like calling Obama half-white or biracial even when he regards himself as black. The genetic distance between the Khoisan and other blacks is not big enough to put them in a separate race. It is no worse than between Greeks and Anglo-Saxons.”

Sorry to say, but that is ludicrous, and I have no idea where you are getting your information from. Diamond’s point is that Africa is more diverse than any other continent. The pygmies and Khoisan are genetically VERY different to the Bantus and everyone else – on the human family tree, they branch off before everyone else. The first Homo sapiens sapiens was undeniably a dark-skinned African, but to say Khoisans are closer than anyone else to those early people is erroneous. Evolution doesn’t work that way; the ancestors of Khoisans and Pygmies split off from other Africans early on, and all continued to evolve into what they are now. If we take out recent admixture, I’m pretty sure that Bantus are actually more closely related to Europeans and Asians than they are to Khoisans.

Most of my African friends get really pissed when Westerners talk as if Africans are all pretty much the same. So it’s kinda weird here seeing people (who I presume are black Westerners) trying to say that Africans are effectively all the same.

“Caesarians were performed in Africa much before colonization. A story of an abdominal delivery as performed by an African operator, is related in detail. Another incident of a black slave in America in 1869 performing abdominal surgery on herself is briefly mentioned. It is clear from the stories that medical knowledge was fairly advanced in Africa: cauterization of the bleeding points with a hot iron was used, dressing with a poultice to decrease risk of infection was standard, closing the incision with animal gut sutures, post operative suture removal, “anesthesia” with wine, and scrubbing with alcoholic beverages were all techniques used that are strikingly similar to “modern” surgical techniques.”

I have not read Diamond’s books. When discussing “expansions” or “conquests” I would imagine he is aware that languages and cultures spread far faster than actual population. For example, we know very well from historical records that the “Arab conquests” of the 7th-10th centuries took place not by Arab populations spreading out from the Arabian peninsula, but rather by a small warrior elite establishing themselves as rulers over other peoples. These peoples then gradually came to adopt the Arabic language and regard themselves as Arabs.

In the same manner, it’s dangerous to interpret the spread of technology or agricultural methods as an evidence also of population migration.

Well , that is the thing, I dont know the gene or DNA background of the differant groups talked about here, but, I just tied various of these groups together in one kind of cultural expresion…and its not like this cultural expresion is done in other parts of the world..except where the descendants of this cultural expresion were brought as slaves.

I dont exactly know why this is, but it is a reality, rarely ackowldedged or discussed by the scholars

I have a huge curiosity how these various people from very differant areas on the continent, arrived at some cultural similarity in how they express themselves…Im not saying they are exactly the same, Im saying there are principles that are in tact and quantifiably can be tied together , and arnt common to ancient people outside of Africa ( keeping in mind, these concepts were fully developed when the first slaves were brought to the Americas, and, there are even ancient Egyption scriptures talking of a singing and dancing pygmy as far back as 3000 bc)

Diamond very much pulled race into this – it is even in the name of his title for the chapter: “How Africa became black”. Further he appeals to American ideas about race when he says that most Afroasiatics are whites. He even draws a rough race map of Africa and spends a page on the standard disclaimers about race (that each race is internally diverse, that there are no hard lines between races, etc). And his “blacks” are those Africans from whom America’s slave labour force was drawn.

I am the one who took race OUT of the whole thing. I do not use the word “race” or “black” or “white” once in the post. It is all about geography, agriculture, technology, language families and so on. Which I find far more enlightening than dividing it up by race.

Dividing Africa by race has nothing to do with Africa itself and everything to do with the dehumanization of blacks in America. Diamond should have said that shit. He did not.

History is twisted to prove the worthlessness of blacks and the wonder of whites. And part of how that is done is by taking away the historically important bits of Africa, like Egypt and early man. Even Timbuktu becomes “Arab” or “due to Arab contact”. This is how the part of Africa with the worst archaeological record becomes the home of the “true” blacks. Wow.

The One Drop Rule is applied to Americans but when it comes to history it goes out the window – even though that very same history is used uphold that racism, a racism that does NOT regard itself as a social construct but as “natural”, as a matter of common sense. Which to me shows what a rotten lie it is.

“Sorry to say, but that is ludicrous, and I have no idea where you are getting your information from. Diamond’s point is that Africa is more diverse than any other continent. The pygmies and Khoisan are genetically VERY different to the Bantus and everyone else – on the human family tree, they branch off before everyone else. “

I am basing my comments on a genetic distance chart from Cavalli-Sforza, as seen here:

History is twisted to prove the worthlessness of blacks and the wonder of whites. And part of how that is done is by taking away the historically important bits of Africa, like Egypt and early man. Even Timbuktu becomes “Arab” or “due to Arab contact”. This is how the part of Africa with the worst archaeological record becomes the home of the “true” blacks.

This is the most significant paragraph in this entire thread; because it basically states the reality of the situation, free from all double-speak, obfuscation, and deception (self-imposed or otherwise).

History, specifically the history of Africa, is used almost purely as propaganda by White Americans and some Europeans to widen what White is, in order to assimilate all Human novelty and invention into the White spectrum. It also has a secondary goal of narrowing what is Black to the extent that one begins to wonder just what the heck “Black’ is, until you take a closer look and then it becomes very obvious. Black is anyone from, or currently living in, the countries in which the former slaves of America originated! Anyone outside that sphere gets their Mischling Card.

The genetic diversity of Africa is celebrated in the White scientific community for these reasons. You’ll notice that these same Whites have absolutely no problem with unifying Europe, some even including the Middle East and North Africa, into a SINGLE race they call “Caucasian” or some other such non-sense label. They do this with Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA testing because they know that those are the best pseudo-scientific ways to unify dissimilar people. What would be more accurate is if they used Autosomal tests, which can determine the fine differences in the DNA of Europeans and all people for that matter.Then they can proceed to break up Europeans into different races just like they do Africans.

“Oh, I’m sorry Mr. English. Your DNA came up Western/Northern European. It’s a shame you can no longer claim the splendors of Greece and Rome. Sorry, Mr Thatch roof!”

For the record, the exercise of writing about 13,000 years of Africa in 500 words showed me how unnecessary race is and how it gets in the way.

I can see “race” being important only when you want to understand the actions of racists, like the Europeans and White Americans. But at that point it is feature of their ideology, not part of the framework of African history.

“I can see “race” being important only when you want to understand the actions of racists, like the Europeans and White Americans. But at that point it is feature of their ideology, not part of the framework of African history.”

The thing is. I act, think and write in terms of practical use rather than other methods of interpretation. I do this mainly because that is how the world itself works. I described the practical application of history; because, after all, all of the sciences are just tools to get what you want or need. History and the social sciences such as anthropology are not simply for understanding Humanity, like it’s some curio. History, anthropology, archaeology and every science is about getting that crucial edge over your neighbor.

There is a significant difference from how laymen see these sciences and how the scientists themsleves see them.

There have been a lot of developments in the study of human genetics and evolution in the last 3-4 years, so I’m not sure how accurate that Cavalli-Sforza chart is now. I’ve seen numerous ways to interpret and present genetic data, and Cavalli-Sforza’s does not tell the whole story. For example, it cannot properly represent populations that are admixed – for example, he categorises Indians as European even though there is clearly a sizable non-European component in Indians.

Obviously I’m not a geneticist so I’m a bit out of my depth discussing this angle, but the stuff I’ve been reading recently seems to indicate a fairly ancient divergence between the hunter-gatherer populations of Africa and those who are now agriculturalists/herders. I’m trying to find a link with a chart but it’s eluding me so far.

Bear in mind that modern man existed in Africa for a long time before a small portion of them departed and gave rise to everyone else. So it is only logical that the greatest genetic diversity exists in Africa because there was so much more time to diversify.

Most Afro-Asiatic speakers are, in effect, “white”; generally speaking, the Berbers and Arabs are much closer to Europeans than black Africans, although obviously there is some admixture and diversity there. Cushitic peoples in the Horn have significant “white” genetic components, although it is certainly a stretch to describe them as actually being white.

I don’t think Diamond has any agenda to denigrate Africans. His whole book is basically a big F U to HBD types who would say that the lack of technological development in Africa and elsewhere is due to some kind of genetic or mental inferiority. He’s one of the good guys.

His book is also pitched at a fairly accessible level, which is why his descriptions of the different populations in Africa are overly simplistic. It is an attempt to explain anthropological science to lay readers, which means the use of loaded and problematic terms like black and white. He does it clumsily, but I think it’s incorrect to read an agenda into it.

It certainly seems reasonable that the current inhabitants of Africa have diverged from the original prehistoric inhabitants as much as the ones descendant from those that left – genetic drift and bottlenecks occurred there too, as well as supplantation of one breeding population over another.

I’d like to see a post about the theory about the differentiation between East Asians and Europeans, who theoretically both trace their origins to Central Asia (and earlier to the Arabian peninsula), with one group migrating to East Eurasia and another migrating to west Eurasia.

What really is important is culture. And its important to not water down what the cultural contributions of certain people are.

I dont care if we want to abanodon “race”, “territorial barriors”, change any semantical way to look at it, as long as we can ackowledge the cultural ties and contributions and what their value is .

If we are going to abandon semantical referances, then other ones that can express these truths have to be defined and substituted

I just tied together cultural similarities of San, Bushmen,Pygmies, Nilo Sahara, Senegal, and could bring in much more of Kenyan, Ghana, Ruanda, Uganda etc etc, and showed how North Africa uses these concepts but mix them with Arab concepts and these concepts dont just stay above the Sahara. And Arab influence affects how the culture is as does Islam and Christianity.

What should never get lost in this shuffle is the fundimental genius of these cultures I tied together….and exactly what makes them unique and contribute so much to the world

Actually, to a significant fraction of your readership and others in the modern west, it probably is indeed a shocker to learn that Africans inflict the same type of racism and dehumanizing discrimination against one another as has been inflicted upon them by outsiders.

I frequently read the opinion that racism and its attendant consequences are the unique provenance of European peoples and European cultures. Obviously, this is a fallacy as the experience of forest peoples in Africa continues to demonstrate.

Abagond:

Do you look up to Hutus? Or are you expecting me to give equal time to Hutu racism, which does not directly affect anyone I know?

No and no, though I was surprised that you characterized the difficulty of finding positive images of Pygmy people as being due to a “cold white gaze” given that the most frequent and persistent tormenters of those groups have been black.

One thing I want to address also is, the scholar world has a pretty good idea of what the fundimentals and values of Christianity, Islam, Judism, Bhudism,Hinduism but there seems to be very little understanding of the fundimentals and values of the cultures I have tied together above in the thread….

Some of the deep values have to do with letting go of the thinking brains and getting in touch with intuition. And, these deep values are much more than the religious rites in Africa that used these concepts in them, the way Christianity uses Bach to compose for the Church…they are much more…

Its interesting that some of the fundimental religios rites are seriously in effect in the Americas, and on full display for us to understant the orgins and value….Candomble in Brazil, Santera in Cuba, Voodo in Haiti and it even carries over into some of the black American church. All have themes of letting go , getting in touch with the spirit, intuition, as I said, the religious rites are just using these concepts , the concepts exist seperatly also…they are much bigger…and the idea of getting in touch with the spirit and intuition and turning off the thinking brain is a very valuable concept to understand and use in this mundane plane world

But, these things arnt really acknowledged or talked about in the same way as the other ways of thought and religion and values, as a matter of fact , they are dismissed

That is why its very important to look at this culture and examine it very deeply on its own terms to fully understand it and its value, to really understand how it got buried over or destroyed by these other values and religions that came in and built over it or conqured the people.This is part of the very deep story of 13,000 years of Africa, and , a very important part of that history

For sure, semantics dont function, “black”, “race” “sub”, they are only words to get the general idea, they fall short at really describing what is happening, but, we need other definition if these arnt enough

The information about Africa’s diversity is a subject that is long overdue-particularly for those of us in the ‘States who almost never get to hear its’ truE history of Africa’s people and their accomplishments. Great post!

Another interesting post on the same tired subject.
Black/meleniated peoples and how whites/albinics done and are doing us wrong.
Its true and its important but its not everything nor the only thing about the world or our(black/meleniniated peoples) place in it.

“Actually, to a significant fraction of your readership and others in the modern west, it probably is indeed a shocker to learn that Africans inflict the same type of racism and dehumanizing discrimination against one another as has been inflicted upon them by outsiders. ”

***********

I see that our favorite pest and irksome RACIST, Randy is rabid in his persistence to label any misconduct between factions as racism. Yet even he has to know that one group fighting against another group doesn’t equate to racism/white supremacy.

Randy, let me make it plain and clear for you. Racism IS white supremacy. White supremacy IS racism. Whites INVENTED (made up) racism as a JUSTIFICATION to rob, kill, rape, mistreat and enslave others. Racism IS NOT two groups of the same so-called race going at each other for whatever reason. Racism IS simply white people mistreating/oppressing OTHERS (non-whites) based upon their skin color!

Saying that ” Africans inflict the same type of *racism* and dehumanizing discrimination against one another,” is akin to saying that England was racist toward France, Italians were racist against Scandinavians, or Spaniards are racist against Poles.

Of course this makes absolutely no sense according to the ORIGINAL definition of racism. Which is why the definitions of “racist” and “racism” have subtly CHANGED over time so that anyone (especially the non-white VICTIMS of white supremacy/racism) can NOW be deemed racist or practicing racism – according to the current dictates of WHITENESS (and those that are held/indoctrinated in its grasp).

Dude you’re wrong again – as usual! (But at least you’re consistent..Obviously you enjoy being a not so undercover racist).
I’m going back to ignoring you and your lame-ass/knucklehead attempts to derail the OP.

You just helped to corroborate my claim to Abagond that many people actually believe that racism is an exclusive invention and pathology of Europeans. Thanks for helping out!

The way that many central African groups treat the Pygmies goes way beyond “groups going at each other” as you put it.

Pygmies are seen as inferior, sub-human. Their land is stolen without guilt or recompense. They’re massacred and abused. To this day, governments refuse to acknowledge them as citizens and afford them basic rights and access to resources.

Read these links and tell me if this type of treatment does not strongly correlate to the historically abusive beliefs and treatment of Africans by Europeans:

Personally, for the most part, I think history is a waste of time. People say those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it. What a crock of horse sh*t! People don’t learn squat about life lessons in history. People continue to do the same mistakes humans have made for thousands of years. Yeah, African history is a little interesting, as is European history; but I care about what people are doing NOW…F*CK HISTORY.

I focus on the present and the possible future.

I tell people this: if you knew for certain there was a God what would you do? You know what people would do? They would crumple up that piece of paper, put in the their back pocket and then business as usual. God, History and all other distractions don’t change people. The technology is more advanced in the 21st century, but we still have the same mentality we had 30, 000 years ago. Evolution will change that, not knowledge.

In your pathetic attempt to “be right” for the 1st time in this thread, you failed to pinpoint where Matari said racism was exclusive to whites. Saying something “is something” doesn’t automatically mean it’s only one thing. So you’re back down to “zero” in this thread. An outcome that you’re all too familiar with.

“Pygmies are seen as inferior, sub-human. Their land is stolen without guilt or recompense. They’re massacred and abused. To this day, governments refuse to acknowledge them as citizens and afford them basic rights and access to resources.”

This is just one example. This is also what happens when you keep spouting the same “sure fire”, copy-n-paste, stupidity. Because the world is constantly changing, you’re eventually going to be wrong when you’re against any sort of logic/research. Why do you even post on this site anymore?

Because I pity you, due to you been getting kicked around this entire thread, I’ll give you an easy out here. Because you’re Randy and you’re predictable, you were honestly implying that this is Pygmies “in general”. Because you now need a way to recover from consistently being made out to look like a complete idiot who’s immune to facts, you’re going to shift goal posts now and say “not all”. While taking this opportunity to abandon this discussion and go off in a different, and more “solid” direction.

Everyone in those five separate classes would be considered Black in America.

Ah yes. America, center of the world. The The Nilo-Saharan would be considered half -Indian in much of Africa (for example Uganda ) or mixed (South African). The Khoisan would be considered half – Chinese in Jamaica. In fact, I used own a friend in my study group with a picture of a San that looked just like him. But that’s just Africa and the Caribbean, a relatively small amount of ‘black people.’ Hell, Omar al-Bashir considers himself an Arab, not a black. You wanna go tell him otherwise?

Most of my African friends get really pissed when Westerners talk as if Africans are all pretty much the same. So it’s kinda weird here seeing people (who I presume are black Westerners) trying to say that Africans are effectively all the same.

“This particular video was designed to show you that the “Nilo-saharan” black man is not only native to “sub-saharan” Africa, However is indigenous to ALL of africa, including the sahara where the indigenous black natives have been outnumbered and systematically erased from HIS-story , via enslavement and colonization. When we examine regions of North africa, like the Ahaggar region of southern Algeria, it show and proves who the indigenous “Saharawi” people truly were, even before the drastic climatic change in the North african region, where most whites claim that no black man is indigenous to.

Extensive, breakthrough Research throughout Kemet (Egypt), Algeria,”Subsaharan” Darfur / Sudan, and zimbabwe, reveals the relation between “subsaharan africa” and the saharan north africa, which changed that mis-conception for many who did not know that we are the orignal north africans, due to the implementation of systematic brainwashing perpetuated throughout the world, as told by the honest white, world renowned african historian Basil davidson.”

here is a quote from who made the youtube of the Nilo Saharans I brought in, and it sais “we are the original North Africans”, so this is a Nilo Saharan saying this.

Its obvious that black Africans do understand this dynamic of black Afrricans and cultural differances and they are debating it also

For me, North Africa is a tremendous criss cross of cultures that can lean one way or the other. Here is an example of drumming that sounds like the roots from the south….This is from Morrocco, I can bring in youtubes of Morrocan music that sounds extremly Arab. So there truly is a tremendous mix of cultures coming together and breaking apart.

Word dont do justice in discussing these cultures, they have to be seen and heard and felt to really come close to getting the true picture…a video is worth a thousand words

“In your pathetic attempt to “be right” for the 1st time in this thread, you failed to pinpoint where Matari said racism was exclusive to whites. Saying something “is something” doesn’t automatically mean it’s only one thing.”

Are you even looking anymore? Or just trodding around thy holier than thou attitude?

“Racism IS simply white people mistreating/oppressing OTHERS (non-whites) based upon their skin color!”

Here is a San healer talking about exactly what I said about dancing to go into a trance to get in touch with the spirit world…the rhythm is in a 6/8, the San dont have a drum cultrue but the priciples that are in other African groove concepts are in tact….Now, the San also have beats that are devided like 3 groups of 6 and one group of 8, so, I want to emphasis that there is diversity in various areas in how people aproach the groove, but, there are also examples of how there is a common thread, like the common thread of European classical music among many countreis with differant languages and customs

You know, there is some genetical differances in these San with other areas nearby, but, not enough to keep them off the slave ship

Music from the San that is the closest Ive found to their culture being very similar to other below the Sahara black African cultures, with lots of great pictures of their culture also

Im concentrating on the San because they are suposed to be the hunters and gatherers who are differant from the southern migration, yet, there are cultural elements that are similar and ones that are very differant also…how did they get similar? Influencing each other?

Actually the link I posted conflicts with your notion that they don’t have ANY rights and are denied basic liberties.

“COOPI, the NGO employing Simone, works throughout the southern district of Lobaye. COOPI is supported by UNICEF and teaches pygmy communities about their legal rights and encourages parents to register their children. COOPI staff also train local authorities, police and military personnel on human rights and the plight of pygmies. COOPI assists pygmy communities with registering to attain legal status as a village. They also support cultural performances and help with establishing schools.”

So let’s not play the Randy Game of Cherry Picking minor details in an article that conflicts with your logic, while dishonestly trying to claim it in fact supports your arguments. What you did, as usual, was ignore the greater point being made, so you could desperately present yourself as being correct. It’s kind of sad, how one of the most “intelligent” trolls on this site has degenerated into such a pitiful display.

I think that many have a limited understanding about what it means to be black, it was never only about colour or phenotype but also about recognizable culture , shared ancestry and being a member of a marginalized group.
I say this because many believe if you remove the U.S. social descriptor “black” you are somewhat different, and we know that racist won’t discriminate.
I have African Friends ( east and west ) who tell me that people in my country are ashamed of being black, they were not talking about phenotype ,but about not promoting “Africanness” within the society.

i don’t necessarily agree that ancient black people didn’t identify themselves by skin colour–too much evidence exists that suggests they did.

Also, unless you have lived in African nations among the black people there, then you could just be speculating about how people see themselves–none of the Africans i have been around– including myself– identify with being anything other than black.

Is this the original doo wop ? amazing vocals that sound contemperary….and, this is the beat that is actualy , counting really fast 5 beat cycle, 2 6 beat cycles and an 8 beat cycle, which , to be sure is not a common beat cycle in a lot of African drumming.

Nice information, Bulanik, those caves had ancient paintings that helped scientists understand the meaning of really ancient European cave paintings by researching living San peoples rituals and consulting their healer, like the one I brought in, I better not paraphrase what I think they found out or I might get it wrong.

Pheobeprunelle , what you say seems to ring true for me

Jared “I think that many have a limited understanding about what it means to be black, it was never only about colour or phenotype but also about recognizable culture , shared ancestry …” rings true also for me

I’m sure you noticed kind of thing: A light skinned Eritrean being “African” in Kenya, an “Arab” in Sudan, “habesha” in Egypt and back in the USA, an “African” again, but a “coloured” in South Africa.
And that is not because that person doesn’t know they are black….

People do that, sometimes they say their mixed when amongst a certain group, among others they claim their blackness.

For some here in the US the label “Black” mainly (or only) applies to Black Americans (the descendants of US enslaved Africans); many others classify themselves more in terms of nationality — either that of themselves or of their immigrant parents (in the case of 1st generation Americans). I have seen this time and time again.

Based on this post I would say Diamond’s book is fundamentally flawed as there are inaccuracies while some things just dont make sense.

For example, Khoisan is presented as if its one ethnic group but its not. They even have different phenotypes. Khoi were pastorialists while San are hunter gatherers. Khoi were wiped out by diseases they caught from Europeans settlers or invaders while San were mostly absorbed by West African Migrants.

I would say that this book should be dismissed as nothing more than cheap charlatanism.

Its not that I personaly think all Africans should think of themselves as black, its the notion that Africans dont think of themselves as black, when obviously some do , which is what I question. And that it is only the “American gaze” or something I question also. I brought in a youtube about the ” Nilo Saharans”, and the person who brought it in was Ethiopian with his moniker “Theusamustfall”, and he was very firm about his “blackness”, and that the “black people” of his area, the Nilo Sahara, are linked to the black people of the south and not the white people of the north.

I think speaking in absolutes of what African people think like , or like this semantic “black” is imposed, when some of the people who it describes are very happy with that description of their identity, is what could be something to question.

We are speaking English on this blog, obviously there are numerous obsticles right there about really describing Africa and the people, but its what we are working with here. If I have to come up with a convoluted five sentance phrase to describe something, and then lose numbers of people because they dont know anything about the description, then, communication is lost.

Either people cant be hung up on semantics or come up with tangible descriptions that we can work with , and more than anything, that is what Im looking for, if someone doesnt like the descriptions then they have to come up with something that I can use, because I sure wont abandon the concepts that there are cultures tied together througout the below the Sahara line, and, they just happen to be mostly dark skinned people…to be sure of differant genes and hues.

I need words to describe how the cultures I demonstrated are tied together. If someone cant help me come up with the words, it does me no good to take these cultures and blur them in with a bunch of others.

See that is the danger about semantics and descriptions, we dont have to throw the baby out with the bath water..

And, the first thing that is going to get lost in the shuffle is the real genius and cultural contribution of those dark skinned people who are tied together exactly by the concepts I have demonstrated very firmly here on the youtubes…or all over , like on the Miles Davis thread, or the Brazil thread where I debated with an anthropologist who could barely ackowledge a bell pattern in Brazilian Candomble was actualy extremly derived from black cultures in Africa..and its in a bunch of places in Africa

The deep philosophies and ways to see the world and get through life are going to be crushed under semantical demands to not use this or that term or that it is some American imposition or what ever , you can just be sure its going to be lost in the discusion and buried under the table….meanwhile, I can listen to some of those youtubes and hear the roots of some of the greatest Cuban, Brazilian, Haition,Jamaicon, Puerto Rican, American etc etc culture

So people have to gve me the words or it just doesnt work and I have to stick to the same old semantics

When I think about it, black is not so much an identity – it is more social and political consequence of a world which after colonialism and slavery existed in those colour terms.

You’re right it was born under those circumstances and it wasn’t around a hundred thousand yrs ago, but it’s here now and it’s meaning may vary among various groups; a socio -political identifier or a cultural glue that binds africans and the diaspora.
If you think about it a hundred thousand yrs ago there was no Europe but today their are Europeans and Euro americans and Euro australians..
Their is a European Identity. but i get what you are saying, good points.

@abagond,
Regarding Jared Diamond in “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” I really did not get that message of him thinking along lines of “black, mostly black, sort-of black, not black.”

He raised the point that Africa is by no means populated by a single contiguous ethnic group, as is often portrayed in media and “common knowledge.” In Europe and the Americas, “black” is often defined by the descendants of slaves taken from Africa – slaves who were mostly of the Congolese / Bantu ethnic backgrounds. So in common portrayals of Africa by whites, it’s presented as nothing BUT that particular ethnic group.

It’s a case of “they all look the same,” and my reading of Diamond is that he finds that portrayal not just inaccurate, but ethically bankrupt. perhaps he’s a little clumsy with expressing it (though again, I never saw the terms you’re attaching to him) but it seems abundantly clear to me.

At any rate, it’s a good point; the continent that serves as the cradle of humanity, the most genetically diverse ark of our species, is most certainly NOT going to be made of people who can just be labeled “black,” by the common European / American definition of blackness, any more than eastern Asia can be ethnically categorized in a Dale Gribble fashion, “So, er ya Chi-neeze ur Jappa-neeze?”

@Kittyem,
Correct, “Khoisan” is not an “ethnic group,” strictly defined. it’s a linguistic group, that happens to be found in two major ethnic groups (The San and the Khoekhoe) and possibly some isolates scattered around sub-saharan Africa.
It’s a terminological shorthand, when talking about the peoples of pre-Bantu southern Africa and their modern descendants as a group.

Diamond’s book is the first tome I would reach for in order to educate someone who thinks a race’s greater technological accomplishment is a sign of racial superiority. And there are a lot of people who think that way. The book is not perfect, but as Satanforce says above, it’s a modern classic.

Jared Diamond is not all good or all bad. There is plenty of good material in his book but his framing is sometimes racist.

On the one hand the main thrust of his book argues against the racist idea that the current state of the world (whites on top, etc) is due to genetic differences in intelligence. On that point he is great. Wonderful, in fact.

On the other hand he does divide the world into races as if they are a fact of biology. He says, yes, races are internally diverse – Berbers look pretty different from Swedes – and yes there are no hard lines between the races – one race slowly shades into another. But he also says:

“Nevertheless, as we’ll see, recognizing these major groups is still so useful for understanding history that I’ll use the group names as shorthand, without repeating the above caveats in every sentence.”

Race as a social construct was NOT one of his caveats. Instead races are “useful for understanding history” – and by history he does not mean since white colonialism, but the past 13,000 years.

As a scientist writing for a lay American public he is helping to support one of the main pillars of white supremacist thinking: that race is a fact of nature. And given that most biologists no longer believe that, he is pushing a racist myth, a very dangerous one.

Regarding your first comment “Who is Black again?”
I’d like to ask, do you believe that people who are predominantly of African descent should be labelled as ‘just black’? Despite their country of origin, traditions, culture etc?
I ask because I notice many people think that there is a ‘Black mono-culture’ that every one who ask darker skin belongs to. Yes, we may share a high melanin content and have roots in the continent of Africa, but it is very dismissive to ignore the hundreds, yes hundreds of ethnic groups in Africa. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent of the planet yet far too many people do not acknowledge this and use the label of ‘Black’ to either dismiss or not acknowledge our variety. Funnily enough, in my experience when I’ve had the question ‘Where are you from’ and I state the East African country I was born in, on my visit to the U.S, It was mainly African Americans that replied “So just say you’re Black!”, or “Basically you’re just Black” and don’t get me started on the time one guy said to me, ‘To the Klan you’re still a n****r!’; As if the perception I have of myself is defined by bigots….Please!

I understand that given the history of the U.S, African Americans – no fault of their own- have no way of knowing where in Africa their roots may lay, and so it is understandable that ‘Black’ is a unifying term. But Africans in general don’t call ourselves Black first because there’s sense of cultural identity, ethnicity, tradition and language that we use to describe or identify ourselves by, rather than just skin colour. Even in the U.K, 2nd or even 3rd generation Nigerians, Kenyans etc use their country of heritage to identify themselves, even if they were born here (England)! and their proud of it too, the same goes for a lot of Jamaicans and West Indians here also.

The beauty and diversity of the various cultures and ethnic groups in Africa should be celebrated and not dismissed as “JUST BLACK”

You said: “The Khoisan are genetically the closest of anyone alive to the first Homo sapiens sapiens, so they need to be denegrified as much as possible. Like calling Obama half-white or biracial even when he regards himself as black.”

Now, from some of the previous comments and posts you have made, it is quite evident that you strongly believe in the ‘One drop-rule’. Calling someone who has a half-white parent; biracial or half-white is an acknowledgment to the fact that they ARE ‘half white’. That is what they are, it’s not all they are, but we can all agree to that. However in regards to self-identification, just because a person may choose to label themselves according to which ‘side’ they may feel closes to, that does not and will never change the ‘racial’ make up of BOTH their parents, whose union is the reason they are here in the first place. I personally see it as a form of denial, which in itself self hatred. Loving who you are, and acknowledging your where you came from is something that should be applauded. Not ‘covered up’ or hushed away, or told to pick a side. A person can identify as almost anything these days, it doesn’t mean that is what they are, some people write ‘Rainbow’ in the race section of the census! Hell, some people even refer to themselves as ‘The second coming of Christ’ but their personal decision to do that doesn’t make it a fact.

The one drop rule, just like the ‘N’ word and everything born out of slavery was created to dehumanize, degrade and destroy. To continue it is to honour those who created it.

I had to get that off my chest, the Obama comment just came out of nowhere and has been griping at my brain cells. But the mixed race debate is getting so old now it is starting to get Liver Spots

Right, coffee time then back to the Africa discussion. There’s an article I recently read about a group of African ‘Semitic’ people in Southern Africa that I need to find….

You said
“Frankly, I cannot imagine ancient peoples in Africa seeing the obvious, the natural skin colour they had, as the most distinctive characteristic in defining themselves. For instance:
Zulu means: People of the Sky
Khoi/San means: King of humans
Senegal means: Our land

I think the Swahili call themselves “people” – no colour attached…why should all the peoples of Africa attach a colour to what they call themselves?
The tribal groups in Europe didn’t all go around self-describing as whites, pinks, or something like that.

I don’t think other peoples around the world all went around calling themselves after their skin colour – they were more likely to describe their humanity, or their cosmic origins, etc. So it gets on my nerves when the race of the many African peoples gets drawn in, and cut up into who was blackest, etc.”

^^^^^^^
THIS!!

I can’t co-sign enough!
Just for that comment alone, I love you for life 🙂

The beauty and diversity of the various cultures and ethnic groups in Africa should be celebrated and not dismissed as “JUST BLACK”

Why do people think that being called Black means that Ethnic identity disappears ? if you want to appear different from Blacks, well good luck with that,other peoples are not gonna spend the time learning how to identify differences, you could wear a T shirt saying you are not Black lol
India has different ethnic groups with different languages and religions yet they are all Indian.
We live in a a world now of large Group identities ,East Asians,Pacific islanders, Middle easterners,Europeans and Whites. Should Tibetans be considered Chinese ?

@ Bulanik
How Jared didn’t seemed to get my point is baffling. It really doesn’t take Stephen Fry…

@Jared
Have you been watching the Olympics? did you see the Opening ceremony where all those talented athletes from African and Caribbean countries walked out? No? You saw ‘Just Black’. Or when Kenya won the long distance running last night… I suppose they were just ‘Team Black’. I also suppose Usain Bolt isn’t Jamaican (West African descended) either, he’s ‘Just Black’, Right Jared?…Oy Vey….

What makes a human being black or african? Is it ancestry, skin color, or phenotype? This is the age-old question that blacks and non-blacks have been debating since the dawn of humankind. If humanity began in Africa, therefore, all human beings are of african descent…Yes and No! That may be true in large part, but, we deal with the here and now. As black people, we often wonder why we’re in conflict with whites and asians so much? Turning back the clock is the crux of the issue. Blackness is the obsession of all human beings, not just black folk. It’s important that we understand this as a race. As Abagond stated, some tribes that migrated out of africa stayed black, some didn’t. Based on visual observation, i would assume that most so-called Arabs were black at some point, but not black today. East-Asians are a mixed bag, they still have the color and facial features, but the hair is straight. Polynesians are black, depending on the islands in questions…some islands are majority black, others are mixed with black and asian, and so forth. Basically, we have a large swath of human beings that used to be black a long time ago striving to be “Black Again.” All of the bs that we witness in the multicultural/humanist movement comes out of the desire of other colored folk to take back what was stolen from them via slavery and colonialism. For a long time, we’ve only dealt with blackness thru the lens of africa and the americas, ignoring the middle-east, south asia and the pacific isles. It’s not a question of color, they’re brown-skinned people without a doubt, but, can said groups be considered “Black” in the eyes of real black people? Are we comfortable with the idea of black people looking different than our ancestors? Again, this is a mixed bag…the women are black enuf to pass, but, the men are not…Blackness Runs Thru The Female! This is the obstacle that stands in the way of Afroasiatics and others who want membership in the fam again. Blackness has to be on both sides, not just the female side. I see this dilemma a lot within spanish culture, some non-black spanish women can pass as black females with no problem, they got the phenotype down pat. This is the group that insist they’re not this or that, they want society to see them as women of color(Black). Abagond, we have to take this issue serious. Are we gonna remain black for centuries to come on this planet, or, are we gonna throw away our blessing for the sake of getting along with others just because it’s the politically correct thing to do? What’s the deal black people?

@ Roxanne,
No Roxanne i think that you missed my point, i have no problem with you stating the limations of the Black identity when it comes to the diverse peoples of Africa and the diaspora, I just felt that it could of been taken a bit further.
You talked about being born in an east african country but aren’t most of those countries made up of different tribes with unique cultures ? does being Ethiopian or Kenyan tell you all about the various groups within those countries ?, What about Nigerian or West Indian. Nothing would be enough to to properly describe the diverse human groups.

Roxanne , Pheobeprunell came in and said she lives in Africa and her colleagues consider themselves “black”, I brought in a youtube where an Ethiopian with a moniker “Theusamustfall”, who considers himself black and sais the people of the Niro Sahara consider themselves “black” and seperate from the “whites ” in the norht. I dont think you can make a statement that all Africans dont consider themselves black….its just not true

But, great , Id like your opinion, I brought in various youtubes, from the various diverse ethnic catagories we have disscussed here with a blatent connection of certain concepts that were invented below the Sahara, by dark skinned people of varius hues. It is there genius, their culture, tied together from those difereant ethnic backgrounds. And you dont find it anywhere else outside of Africa except the places where descendants of West African slaves, but these concepts are in East Africa, and South Africa, and, traces are found in North Africa with obvious Arab influences tied into it

As a person , who, when I am not on this blog, am battling to educate people on these concepts, that are unique to the genius of the cultures I tied together in these youtubes , I am limited by the semantics of English, which is severly lacking to truly describe this genius…how would you reccomend that I describe these cultures that have this tie of concepts,even if they also have many of their own unique differances also ? Without having to go into paragraphs to describe the breakdown

I think what has slipped from some here: like abagond points out, the whole concept of race appears insane when thinkin about Africa and its history.

And, terms like “black” and “white” and the rest are, I think, the lingual tools of racism to define people from the outside. I think that the very idea of races and racial differences sit so deep in american language as a system of thinkin that it is very hard for any one grown up inside that system to see what they are: tools to separate humanbeings, vehichles to guide the thought process towards certain world view.

Not one african with whom I have talked with or know defines him/herself as black. They may say that they are senegalese etc. or some tribal name etc. but not as black. The Black comes into the self definition ONLY after introduction to the european or american culture and society. It is those who define them all as blacks. It is also that same System which defines afroamericans as just “blacks”.

As I understand calling certain people as blacks was an insult, a racist slur in USA way back when, so that in 60`s the activists “stole” that word from the racist by claiming Black is beautiful etc. They purposely changed its meaning from degratory insult into something else and so successfully that today “black” is (almost) neutral definition in the racist system frame.

I understand that need and emotional history behind it. Some european people who have been second class citizens or non citizens have done the same: the word Celtic was also an insult way back when. It referred to the more un civilized and brutal folks, the irish and such, but since then it has become a source of pride.

When talking about african history a debate of who is black and who is not seems almost funny. Almost. The sad thing is that it reflects the racist system of concepts and thinking, of language and that way symbols, in the western minds. It is so deep in our heads that when we look at Africa, a vast and huge continent with thousands of cultures and fantastic history going back to the birth of human, we start to wonder who is really black and who is not and why.
I think it is nonsense.

I need to know how to describe who is responsible for the “recognisable culture”.

We all know that Europe is recocognised as the fonte of European classical music, various countries languages and culture are tied together by a common thread that evolved classical music, that , even when played all over the world, Europe is known as the fonte.

Why people cant tie that together with the cultures I have demonstrated , is beyond me…

“black”, “subsahara””African”…its all “quantum smantics”

follow the culture, that will really tell you the real deal , if you can really define it. You have to seperate the Islam and Chritianty and the Europe and Arab from Africa to really examine the roots of the culture Im talking about

Well , Sam, I just said there are Afrcans who call themselves “black”
Go into the Niro Sahara thead I brought in and see how an Ethiopian descibes himself,and then notice on the side of the youtubes a huge amount of youtubes that arnt American addressing this

What a false concept to think that no Africans think of themselves as “black”…..now I agree its a lot semantcal hangups, but no need to make just false statements

Because I know only too well that below the Sahara isnt just “black”, that is a semantical term that depending on the intent can mean many things.

But, if you think the word “black ” is not adequate, you have to give me an alternative definition of the cultures I have blatently tied together with the similarities of expresion the same way Italy is differant culturaly than Germany but they are tied together by similar concepts in classical music

Otherwise , the genius of the cultures we are talking about get smothered over and buried, and that is what has always happened anyway. Islam has done it, Christianity has done it, Arabs have done it, Europeans have done it, all have buried and destroyed and built over this genius with their own cultures and beleifs

I mean how would you describe this genius, Sam ? There really are these ties and they are unique and dont come from other parts of the world…how would you describe it in a way I can tangably use in the battles I fight to get these concepts across to other people?

People are talking at each other here and not really listening, and we are getting hung up on semantics…too bad, there is a really rich vast incredible subject to dive into and learn, and Ive learned here from everyone, but, nobody is really listening

You know, its all fine and good to talk about migrations, farming habits, language and dialects, they are important to understanding history in anthropology and arcaeology, but, art ,the expresion of their culture is the window to a peoples soul and their humanity and exactly who they are

Ive brought in some of the art of the people south of the Sahara, which undeniably demonstrates their humanity and soul, and shows how there are connections and ties between those people , from West, South and East Africa

Its pretty much blatently right there….but, it seems no one really wants to address that aspect in this discusion, even though it has deep answers to the culture of that people that stretches back thousands of years

It is false, but what is more interesting is that some seem to be implying that it is wrong. You won’t ask white people to stop identifying as white?

Oh yes, the anything but black meme. Whites don’t concern themselves with this because they are the default race. There is nothing wrong with saying you are black and from___insert country, continent. Your ‘colour is not all you are but unfortunately, whites make it so, being the ‘default’ race they don’t have to, nor want to give two sh&ts. Phoebe, you are very diplomatic!

As far as semantics and confusion, how about”Asian”…a lot of people are confused about “South East Asian”, they dont get it can mean several ethnic backgrounds…

And what about native Americans and “Indian”…my gosh, its a name meant for people who they thought were in India…what kind of semantic confusion is that?

How about South Americans…a whole whole lot of people think its just Spanish when the biggest country in South America speak Portuguese, beleive me, Ive run into that confusion more than a few times…more semantic confusion

how about “it depends on what your definition of “is” is…”
its quantum semantics, guarenteed to gum up any conversation and guarenteed we arent going to get anywhere

Perhaps I should try to clarify myself here. I am not saying it is wrong to identify oneself as black. What I am saying that those africans I have met have not introduced themselves to me as “I am so-and-so, I am black”. Instead they have said: “I am so-and-so and I’m from Togo, Senegal, Kenya” etc. Or: “I am masai, ibo, yoruba” etc.

Whites do define themselves sometimes as whites because it is their system to categorise people according to the racial epitets, by the color of the skin. That is pretty much the system in many countries but extremely strong in USA. But even whites do not usually define themselves first and foremost as whites but being as a citizen fo a nation, part of the ethnic group, in many many cases by their profession etc.

Of course black africans know and understand that according to the race based system of thinking they are black and of course they sometimes define themselves as black BUT that is not the first and foremost definition they apply to themselves. It has meaning in the white racist system of consepts, or idea. So when dealing with that system of thinking they define themselves as blacks vs whites or any other racial color definition. BUT in Africa, when I was there, I never met a single african who stated that first and foremost he/she is black. Nor I have met any african living in Europe who states that he/she is first and foremost black, and nothing else period.

What I am saying that because in the american racist thinking system color of your skin IS the defining factor you start to think that way and see the world that way. Your skin color becomes who you are, everything you do or say etc. is your skin color BECAUSE that is the point. In racist system it is the Only thing that matters. You are no longer a doctor, a scientist, an athlete, a woman, a man, father, mother BUT you are first and foremost black. Period. It is how the surroundings define you and how you define yourself. Everything is about the color of your skin. Nothing else matters in the big scheme of things, only your skin color. So, naturally, you begin to categorise the whole world around you via the very same race based way. That is why it becomes The Thing. That is the corner stone of racism. To make you think trough your skin color, to make you believe that the color of your skin is the only thing that matters.

BUT in Africa, were most of the people around are “black”, that is not the point. It is almost meaningless. There are litterally thousands of groups who are so called “black”. It just makes no sense. A guy from Masai Mara is a masai when meeting some one from the coastal region, from Mombasa for example. He does not say that hey, I am black, by the way. BUT in the racist system of thinking and from the outside and in the context of the Outside (“white world”) he is black african.

As for the european unity and feeling of togetherness, I think that is a load of propaganda by some intellectuals, church people and the EU. There is no Europe other than in geographical sense. There are many separating lines and these are very deep. One is between the religions, lutheran and catholic, south and north, more local ethnich lines etc. Just look at the Yugoslavian wars in 90’s. Just look at the conflict in Northern Ireland or talk some irish guy about the english. One might say that it is an racist Utopia, the unified white Europe. There is no such thing, never was, never will be. Nor there is no “european culture”. European cultures, yes, but not A Culture. No more than there is european language.

Sam, I apreiciete your explanation, and I just want to point out a couple of things. How do you define what European Classical music is? The basic fundimentals of advanced harmony were developed there by the various European countries like Germany, Italy, Russia, Hungary, France etc….the principles are recognised as coming from there. Of course, any one from anywhere can learn and play these concepts, but they have to go throught that tradition. Even a great composer, like Vila Lobos, from Brazil, who used many ideas from folklorico Brazil, still has to filter it throught the standards established by the tradition of European Classical music.

You mention Africans defining themselves by country… I mean, arnt these countries national boundry lines defined by white colonizers?
My wife is black Brazilian, of course, whe wont introduce herself as a black Brazilian, but, in our privacy she will lament very sadly at the discrimination she has experianced because she is black

The thing is, I totaly understand and apreciete the diversity and mixture you all are talking about. But, Im sure to a tee, Sam, Bulanik, Roxanne, Eurasion Sensation, you all could recognise and have a great insight into the Arab cultural influence on North Africa.You have no trouble defining Arab and their contribution…

But it seems you all are hard pressed to recognise and ackowledge (Bulanik did ackowledge culture but I dont think she can define what it is) the way there is a tie between all these various groups I brought in from West, South and East Africa, and to be able to try to explain the genius involved in that culture.

If you really want to beat the HBDers into the ground, you just have to be firm about what that genius is, and all of their lame points melt to nothing.Its funny, having a debate with and anthropologist, he practicly scoffed at the notion that it is genius, in the face of the unbeleivable presence of the Afro diasporic culture in the Americas despite brutal repressive slavery…now that strong powerful culture that comes from a genius unique to the youtubes I have tied together

Bulanik, I have brought in serious referances to ancient Africa, its strange you are the one who brought in the controversy about the semantic “black”… that is why we are going over this.

And you know, Im not really fighting or arguing with people on here about this. I have enjoyed immensly the informtion Bulanik brought in about the Zulu hanging with the San, and then see the steps they both do with jingles on their feet are similar…its not the jingles, some native Americans use jingles also, they just dont use the same concept of steps….its totaly differant

The truth is, Ive almost begged for an alterntive definition about how I can express the truth about this genius and the ties it has…but, no one has anything for me….

Im kind of leaning towards ” the culture from the past that is left in Africa after you strip away the Islamic, Christian, Arab , European influences….”…..

Since “black” and “sub” are under scrutiny, does that include “Afro”? White Brazilians also get uptight if you try to define “Afro Brazilian culture”, they say, “we are all Brazilians”, but they cant even recognise their own culture. The great artists can recognise it there and have talked about it, not the white nationalists.What about “Afro diasporic”? Knowing using that term is really a definition for the concepts I have tied together , not Arab influences..what is the scrutinised responce to that?

By the way, when I said I dont think Bulanik can describe that culture, I meant what I am talking about, not the many informative things she knows about the migrations , dialects, farming versus hunting gatherers…Im saying she is hard pressed to understand what I am talking about this tie in of these various below the Sahara cultures…..

And seriously, unless you all can address this overwelming aural and visual evidence I have brought in, there is a hole in what you are saying…you all are making great points, I just suggest you go back to the drawing board and tweak it…Im tweaking my point of veiw as we go here

Sam, glad you mentioned the Masai, they are a group that suposedly was one of the migrations back South..they dont emphasize a drum culture as much…neither to the San, but, some of their concepts as I showed do line up with the ties Im taking about and a lot doesnt…yes, I do say that there is a lot of differant cultural expresion , but, like in Europe with all the differant cultures, they have huge links in their classical music ( they just call it classical musc, as though it can be the only music anywhere that could be defined as classical and we all know that it comes from Europe)

by the way, I want to clarify Im talking about past culture, there is a huge hybrid culture happening in Africa today with the use of electric guitars, basses, drum sets, dj mixing, influences of Reggae, Clave and James Brown

Wow. I am just reading some of the comments and it really does seem like people are doing their best to discredit black–by saying it is the “white racist way in which people describe other people”…just wow.

You totally disregard the fact, that before there was substantial contact with whites or others–ancient blacks–oops that’s a bad word–*shame on me* well lets say Africans–referred to themselves as “black”, “dark”, kemetic–which means land of the blacks–no they weren’t referring to soil….

You seriously telling me that art found in temples of darkly hued people in depictions of their everyday life–these people didn’t know how they looked? They didn’t know how to define themselves? They were wrong? Listening to the white man–yeah? Really?

I don’t believe or at least the way i interpreted it–that people here are saying black is the only definition–no it isn’t but not many blacks i have encountered separate their blackness from their nationality or ethnicity.

Here is what Phoebeprunell is talking about, and, please check out the person describing the video below, who is Ethiopian and seriousy identifies as black and has a monikar “theusamustfall”, hardly the American point of veiw

Good point about Kemetic

What is the story about Nubia and the Carthage armies of Hanibal were famous for having the quick moving Nubian troops? Just asking, I dont know

I apreciete it , Roxanne, and, I earnestly ask you for the way to define what I am seeing, as a way to define how these differant expresions of these groups on the youtubes, are tied together in certain cultural areas, if the terms I am using arnt working

You said “Im kind of leaning towards ” the culture from the past that is left in Africa after you strip away the Islamic, Christian, Arab , European influences….”…..

Why not just say ‘Pre-colonial Africa’, or the specific African region you are discussing, it doesn’t have to be a complicated mouthful, it really doesn’t. It’s the same way if you were having an educational discussion about North America before European invasion, or as I’ve heard some say The Americas BC (Before Columbus). Or say, a single country, India, you would say pre-colonial India, or the specific age in India’s history that you are referring to. It’s not that hard, most Indians know they have skin colour a shade of brown, they know this, but you’d be crazy if they were to say they were ‘Brown Only’ or Brown India. It’s stating the obvious. Plus, when you’re the majority in a country where everyone else shares a similar or not too dissimilar skin tone from you, why on earth would you let that define you? That’s the situation in Kenya, that’s the situation in Uganda, that’s the situation in Congo, Burundi, Mongolia etc. This thing about ‘White people’ being the default. Yeah, where there’s a lot of Europeans maybe, but believe me, Slavery and Colonialism might have caused the African Continent real damage. But we have held on to a hell of lot that we had before Europe, and before arab invasion, i’ll be dammed if I gave in and saw myself as ‘Just Black’. My parents are way too proud of their name and clan to let me forget that. Black and dark skin IS a part of us and our various stories, particularly in relation to contact with people from other continents, BUT it is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think you’re maybe making this more complicated than needs be. If it’s easier for you to talk about Africa simply in ‘Black’ terms, so be it, that’s up to you. My head hurts, let’s agree to disagree

by the way, I want to clarify Im talking about past culture, there is a huge hybrid culture happening in Africa today with the use of electric guitars, basses, drum sets, dj mixing, influences of Reggae, Clave and James Brown

That’s right, the currents that took Africans to the New World are now bringing back new world diasporic culture to the continent. we all know that defining someone based solely on skin colour and phenotype is very limiting.
Does anyone know how these New world Afro descended influences have affected current African society ? What about in 50 yrs time would Africa still be African ? most of us don’t know because we are not looking at things from that particular angle.
You have young boys from Egypt to South Africa rapping,West africans dancing to their version of Jamaican dancehall. Should those influences be associated with blackness if so then how black is africa ?

Do you always need to wait for a question to make a statement? It is what it is….A Point of view

That depends; especially in debates.

If that is your point of view fine. However, i doubt anyone here has implied that by referring to a person as black–that is all they are. I think Jared, myself and B.R. were saying that identifying with blackness does not erase a person’s nationality or ethnicity. In many cases it is intertwined.

I don’t see or have read commentors here questioning why white people refer to themselves as white or suggesting to them that they give that up. If there are black people who want to solely identify as black–what does anyone have against that and why suggest that they are inaccurate? There could be a multitude of reasons why they see it that way.

Like I said, I have not met an african person myself who has said to me that he/she is black and then something. Usually they have stated the country which they come from, or when I was in Africa some 20 years ago, they very often defined themselves via their tribal group or an area etc. BUT of course they all knew/know that in the racist skin color system they are “black”.

I am not saying that they deny this. What I am saying that based on my personal experience in Africa back in 80’s and in Europe, those africans I have met have not placed that much emphasis on the color of their skin. Usually they have been defined as blacks by non blacks.

As for the electric guitars etc. I used to listen Fela Kuti back in the late 70’s so I know they been around in Africa at least since the 60’s and earlier. It is not like Africa has ever been in a time capsule culturally either. There were some really swank night clubs in many african cities in 1950’s already, african jazz musicians and singers were world famous in the 50’s etc.Just like Africa has been giving cultural impulses to the rest of the world and keeps doing so, it has also taken in.

And that brings us to the “european classical music”. It is a name describing certain style of music which has very strict hierarchies and codes. In a sense, it is just a style, one mode or way of making music. It was not very popular among the masses in the days of Beethoven, Motzart and Bach, but among the elites it was popular. Perhaps that is why it became so hierarchial too? Even today, when it is more popular than ever, it is still seen as the music of the snobs and higher classes.

Trying to see certain music or art as pure european or pure anything is also an old way of looking at things. It is the way world view was constructed back in 1800’s and that kind of thinking is still very strong in USA which for some reason forgot that we live in a post modern world which recognises that there are no clear cut divisions or in a wider sense anything “Pure” or “clean”. Not culturally, in arts or music, or even racially.

Actually the whole concept of various races is a just a fantastic relic from the 1800’s and it is mind bogglin that it still holds so tightly in the official system of USA and some other countries. The science has demonstrated without any doubt that there is only one human race, It is a biological fact. And yet, here we are, in 2012, trying to do away the racism.

I conclusion: I do not deny the word black nor I think it can not be used, nor I have any negative meanings with that word. All I pointed out was that those africans whom I have met during my life time have not defined themselves as black first and foremost. They know that they are seen as black, and see themselves as black in the skin color system of the west, but in their lives they do not make this as The defining factor of their lives.

I understand that it is different in USA. I have been there too. I have lived in USA twice so I know the realities over there. And the fact is that in USA the color of your skin IS the defining factor because the whole cultural system around you is racist. There fore an american with african heritage is classified first and foremost as black, not as an newyorker, philadelphian etc. not to mention that they would defined as scientists, generals, professors etc. It is always a Black athlete and then just an athlete, who is usually white.

And that is the reason why it is important to be black and proud of it. That is the reason why it is important to build up postive connotations and meanings for the Black, which is ok. I am not saying it should not be done, I am all for it.

But I think this is not the case for the africans living in Africa. They have no need for it all the time in their lives. Yes, they can be called as blacks and yes, they sometimes call themselves as blacks, but only in the context of our racist system. Hope this clarifies my take on this a bit more.

All of this is so basic. Africa is our homeland, black and brown are the colors. The same goes for europeans as well. White arabs and spaniards have added a lot of confusion in regard to this issue. A group of white-complexioned people who say they’re not white, instead, they choose to identify themselves with another race more than their own…Blacks! The obvious question, can blackness be co-opted by others that are not black? A certain percentage of whites on this planet don’t know what whiteness is, because they’ve obsessed over black culture so long, it’s all they know. From my perspective, Why would someone loathe their culture to that extent? Racial acceptance is relevant to all human beings, but, with black folk it’s even greater. Being the first comes with a lot of responsibility, black people need to remember that.

” think Jared, myself and B.R. were saying that identifying with blackness does not erase a person’s nationality or ethnicity. In many cases it is intertwined.” yes

Lots to anwser here, Roxanne and Sam, I apreciete your answers. I dont think any of us really is delving in stereotypes, and , after all, we all have a great affinity and are sympathetic to the plight of Africans

“Pre colonial”…I like that, does that include pre Arab invasion ? Because that would be part of it too, if it does, Im happy to use that phrase . Roxanne, I would never presume that you should think a certain way about yourself…I only observe that Pheobeprunell is stating another experiance and I brought in a youtube with an Ethiopian exclaiming about his “blackness” and the “blackness” of the Nilo Saharan people. So, obviously, and not surprisingly,there are lots of differant opinions about that….of course we can agree to disagree, and Im here to learn also…the only thing about narrowing down a region is that, what Im talking about is many regions, with differant cultures and genes and hues, who have , a part of their culture that is tied to very similar concepts, they are principles and laws of music that show a tremendous insight and genius. And, Im not saying all the people in those areas do these principles , Im saying enough people do , that it has to be taken note of and understood, its as big as Classical music is to Europe with the same situation that many differant cultures and languages , established certain laws of music for their expresion.

And, for example, I brought in a San healer talking about trance and getting in touch with the spirit world through dance and chanting. Lots of other cultures in the world use trance and try to get in touch wth the spirit world with music and prayer, but, its the unique way that these various people in pre colonial Africa do it, with specific principles of groove and dance , duple / triple meter, call responce. And, in the Afro diaspora you have varius religious rites like Candomble, Santera, Voodoo that go after these same principles because they brought them from pre colonial Africa. There is a specific way and concept these pre colonial Africans were in touch with that was unique to them and was its gift to the world.

And I can bring this concept in from East Africa, West Africa, South Africa, and its traces that were up in North Africa but you can hear he Arab influence in there which does change the paramater..

Sam, your experiances and insights are always welcome, I would never deny your experiances, I only say it seems there are also other people who have their experiances…we can only put it together and try to get some kind of bigger picture. Of course, many things you all have said, about varying cultures, I know and beleive also. But, I need definitions to get at the root of describing these cultural properties , that are extremly blatent to me…

Ha, I kind of meant in a thread about 13,000 years, the 60’s or so is pretty recent…Fela is great, I saw Hugh Masakela in the 60’s ( I have to post this, my computor is gliching and Ill fix it and continue)

Sam, interesting point you make about classical music…Im not even a huge afficiando, but, I think if there was anything about Europe in the 17 century and 18th century compared to looking at the wars, the migrations, the foods, etc, to understand the soul of the people , it would be to hear Mozart, Bheetoven, Bach.etc…their gift of vision of harmony is something that has lasted and lasted and even ite principles carried over into Afro diasporic concepts like jazz and samba and Cuban music , even though its the slave to the groove of those idioms….and that is also what you could say that I would want to reject about them and reflective of this methodical Western way of expressing music or ife, where every note is written out and there is no groove to build off of and go into intuition and turn the thinking brain off…feeling , yes…turning off the tinking brain, no, pre colonial African music is the most profound at uncovering that to go into an alpha state…

Im glad you said it wasnt popular, because Im not saying these pre colonial African concepts are done by all of Africa and are pretty much regulated to folklorico groups in each of the countries like Gana and Nigeria , Kenya etc,or , actualy out in the bush, I have freinds who went into the bush to hear the roots of these principles…

Depth is never popular…I guarentee you, those harmonic insights have outlasted so much else that has been forgotten from those periods and these pre colonial African concepts have lasted well into our age and virtualy dominated the popular cultures that slaves were brought over from Africa…isnt that really deep?Unfortunatly, the West only uses it for their entertainment, they really dont have an idea how to tap into its full power , except people like MIles Davis and John Coltrane , or Estacao Primeiro de Mangueira

It always makes me lol! Most of the the Ethiopians who are debating their blackness are those that live in Addis. It has to do with where they were educated cause lots of them go to Italy or Germany to university and then go back home. It also has to do with Arab influence on some Ethiopians, but most of the ones I know consider themselves black; their problem is mainly ethnocentrisms (if that’s a word) where they can be very cliquish about religion and ethnicity. I have heard many an Ethiopian say “we all black” so why the fighting? lol.

I thought what was interesting about it was there were differant points of veiw that some represented the differant opinions on here, and that is in Ethiopia , which is on the cusp of the Nilo Sahara and Arab mixes…….

I actualy dont know how that came in, I wrote it but decided not to send it, but, when I left the thread, I guess it went through

Roxanne, Im trying to use the words you reccomended ” pre colonial Africa”.

Do you really think that implies the Arab and Islamic aspects also ? It sounds more like it refers to the recent colonisers, which wouldnt even include the European slave trade since they didnt colonise Africa, they were buying slaves for their colonies in the Americas… ….or , what do you think about that? Are you considering the Arabs colonisers also ?

If you’re black, you’re black. What’s the point of beating yourself up for having kinky hair and brown skin, Seriously? If being black is so bad, those in question should drive to the nearest Home Depot and purchase 2 buckets of white or yellow paint, and “Get It Poppin.” All the ills that plague us as a race today, and we’re arguing about whether or not we should identify as african, african-american, negro, colored, and so forth? Have black folk ever heard of “The Chocolate Rainbow?” We come in many shades, facial features, hair textures, physiques…All Of The Above! Come on black people, it’s 2012!!!

Be who you are, not someone else. This goes for all races. However, that’s not how racial identity works. I don’t see this paranoia with other races, only black people. We have to un-black ourselves to get along with others, which i’ve never understood. Black people are seen as a “Gift Horse” in the eyes of others.

I’m not the only one that has noticed this mindset among other races. It’s okay for whites, asians, and native-americans to be who they are, but not black people. We have to de-emphasize the fact that we are different from the others. As i’ve said many times on this blog, if others are not happy with themselves, it’s not our problem to worry about. It goes back to the old saying…misery loves company. If we can’t be black, black people shouldn’t be equally happy to be so at the same time. I understand the desire of others to be “African.” That’s what all of this insanity is about, but, folk can’t turn oil into water and water into champagne…Not Possible! On the surface, this may seem trivial, but it’s not. Blackmen are killing other black people on this planet because they don’t see them as black like them, instead, they call them human. That’s the dangerous aspect of this issue that we run away from as a race. Phoebe, all of us are inter-dependent as black people. What i do as one blackman alone can positively or negatively affect the race as a whole…Connectivity! I don’t have to know you personally, live in the same country, speak the same language, etc. But, if i strap a bomb-belt around my waist and kill dozens of black folk in Nigeria, it will affect all of us. This is why we have to fight the temptation to see ourselves as less than black. No matter how much we disagree about this or that, i love you enuf to not do bodily harm to you and others. Blackness is 24/7365

Phoebe, all of us are inter-dependent as black people. What i do as one blackman alone can positively or negatively affect the race as a whole…Connectivity! I don’t have to know you personally, live in the same country, speak the same language, etc.

Great information from Bulanik, and to just add to that, I got this link from the site of regular poster here, Kwamla, about an ancient civilisation much older than we can imagine who were involved, according to this link, in digging for gold and trading….the evidence is very powerful and the ramifications are incredible if the dates are correct

The Sahara WAS a barrier, but the extent of it was different at different times.

The “Green Sahara” period, when there was greater moisture and much of the area became savannah, was from about 7000BC until 3000BC. It was in this window that cattle and goat herding most likely entered Africa from the Middle East; herding is thought to have reached the southern tip of Africa 2000 years ago via the Khoikhoi.
It is likely that the spread of the Afro-Asiatic language family also occurred in this time, with pastoralism the likely catalyst.

But outside that window (and several other windows that occurred earlier in prehistory), the Sahara was mostly desert and reduced exchanges between north and south to low levels. Clearly there would have been black Africans north of the Sahara, but their numbers were probably not great. Caucasian-type hunter-gatherers (the ancestors of the Berbers) are also known to have been living along the coast of Northern Africa for at least 12,000 years. Even with a Green Sahara, spread of hunter-gatherer populations is limited. They do not expand rapidly in the way farmers or pastoralists do, because the H-G lifestyle can only support a small population. Range further afield and H-Gs would come into conflict with other H-G groups. So the two populations would have moved north and south, but only to some extent, limited by the terrain (in the periods of Sahara desert) or the presence of other tribes and the carrying capacity of the land during the Green Sahara phase.

The main exception to this is of course the Nile Valley, which remained fertile, and allowed genes and culture to still be exchanged in both directions. The trans-Saharan trade network is also limited by the willingness of people to undertake such arduous journeys; but also there was probably a gap of 2-3000 years between the Sahara drying up and the use of the camel as a domesticated animal in the region.

Pastoralism, and later farming, resulted in greater population growth, and thus the spread of genes and culture across north and east Africa. But this could only happen at certain times, in certain places and in certain directions, due to the environmental restrictions.
So I think it’s clear that sub-Saharan Africa was hampered to a large extent by its location. It is no surprise that Ethiopia, at the end of the Nile, historically has a lot more genetic and cultural influence from the “white” world than, say, Nigeria.

This commonly held belief is consistently invalidated by African history. From the fall of ancient Egypt to the advent of the transatlantic slave trade, all the states which dominated this part of the continent were built around the transaharan trade: Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Kanem Bornu, etc…. Interactions through Sahara were not sporadic/limited but constant and of large scale. They are abundantly documented (both by written and oral tradition) and confirmed by obvious cultural influences.

For ages, the Sahara has been portrayed as an ‘empty-quarter’ where only nomads on their spiteful camels dare to tread. Colonial ethnographic templates reinforced perceptions about the Sahara as a ‘natural’ boundary between the North and the rest of Africa, separating ‘White’ and ‘Black’ Africa and, by extension, ‘Arabs’ and ‘Berbers’ from ‘Africans’. Consequently, very few scholars have ventured into the Sahara despite the overwhelming historical evidence pointing to the interactions, interdependencies and shared histories of neighbouring African countries. By transcending the artiﬁcial ‘Saharan frontier’, it is easy to see that the Sahara has always been a hybrid space of cross-cultural interactions marked by continuous ﬂows of peoples, ideas and goods.

A simple question: if the exchanges were so limited, how does one account for the scope of North african influences obvious throughout the sahelian cultures?

The trans-Saharan trade network is also limited by the willingness of people to undertake such arduous journeys

Another myth which is contradicted by facts.

I live in northern Benin (well, actually the center, but here the cultural north encompasses about 2 thirds of the country. Don’t ask.) This part of the country is culturally closer to our Northern neighbor, Niger, than from the southern part of the country (where I’m from). Up to this day, and despite better roads and a railroad linking my town to the capital in the South, the circulation between our town and Niger remains more “natural” than with the South. I actually know several people who walked from Northern Niger to here.

Dahoman X , as a person who lives in Benin , what do you think of what Im saying that there are pre colonial, pre Arab, Islamic , European, Christian, cultural ties in certain concepts of music, drum/dance, to be found mostly in West, East and South Africa, that while not being the same ( very important to note im not saying its the same dances , the same beats, Im saying that the conceps have something in common ), have a conceptual connection that is not the same as the Arab or European influences (which I have demonstrated in various youtubes above) ?

Your history fits a narrative of White Saviours and Helpless Darkies. That does not disprove it, of course, but it does make it suspect.

Even Diamond would disagree with you:

1. The main southern barrier for Afroasiatics was not the Sahara but the summer rains south of it where their plants do not work.

2. From #1 we can tell that agriculture between the Sahara and the equator is native. It does not come from the Middle East.

3. The main thing that delayed Africa south of the equator from taking part in the agricultural revolution was not the Sahara (see #2) but the lack of native plants and animals that could be domesticated in that part of the continent.

what do you think of what Im saying that there are pre colonial, pre Arab, Islamic , European, Christian, cultural ties in certain concepts of music, drum/dance, to be found mostly in West, East and South Africa

Music is not my field of expertise, and I’m not trained in ethnology either, so I can only give you my subjective opinion.
I believe there is a fundamental unity between African cultures, not only in music but in each aspect of our cultures: philosophy, religion, systems of value, etc… This is not to say we are a monolithic bunch, but that there are a number of common denominators upon which each of our cultures builds its own expression, according to its own distinct character and circumstances.

The Sahara was only a barrier to Europeans. Africans have lived in the Sahara continuously for millenia, and I have proof. First there are hundreds of rock paintings in the Sahara that date beyond 5000 BC.

Even Herodotus(c. 450 BC) told of several different peoples living in the Sahara: Ammonians, Nasamonian, Garamantians, Atarantians, Maxyan, Zavecians, and Gyzantians.

And we have historical evidence that Africans populated the ENTIRE length of the Nile, as told by Diodorus (c. 50 BC):
“There are also numerous other Aithiopian tribes; some live along both sides of
the river NILE and on the islands in the river, others dwell in the regions that border on Arabia, others again have settled in the interior of Libya . The majority of these tribes, in particular those who live along the river, have BLACK skin, snub-nosed faces, and CURLY hair”

Given all these historic accounts, how is it that so many whites say that the Sahara was a barrier for Africans? what proof do you have?

You have no evidence to prove Europeans were in Africa prior to the Cyrenians. I don’t know why whites say 12,000 BC or 30,000 BC…where’s the proof?

Ethiopians were not influenced by Europeans, it was the exact opposite. It is the only African country that was never colonized by Europeans. Ancient Ethiopia, which encompassed a much larger area than modern Ethiopia, actually colonized both Europe and Asia.

Homer (c 800 BC) said Ethiopians ruled Arabia and Troy: “Eos (Dawn) first saw him, she fell in love with him and brought him to her palace by the stream of Ocean in Ethiopia. They had two children, Memmon and Emathion. Emathion became a king of Arabia…Memmon took a force of Ethiopians to Troy and died while fighting the Greeks”

The bible (c. 675 BC) says thanks to “Tirhakah [Taharka] king of Ethiopia” “Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.”

Diodorus (c. 50 BC) said: “Osiris being come to the borders of Ethiopia, raised high banks on either side of the river…Thence he passed through Arabia, bordering upon the Red sea as far as to India, and the utmost coasts that were inhabited; he built likewise many cities in India, one of which he called Nysa”

Strabo (c. 50 BC) said: ” However, Sesostris, the Egyptian, he adds, and Tearco [Taharka] the Aethiopian advanced as far as Europe

Stephanus (c. 700 AD), “Ethiopia was the first established country on earth; and the Ethiopians were the first to set up the worship of the gods and to establish laws.”

Music is not my field of expertise, and I’m not trained in ethnology either, so I can only give you my subjective opinion.
I believe there is a fundamental unity between African cultures, not only in music but in each aspect of our cultures: philosophy, religion, systems of value, etc… This is not to say we are a monolithic bunch, but that there are a number of common denominators upon which each of our cultures builds its own expression, according to its own distinct character and circumstances.

Oh man. The Kurukan Fuga. Imagine the amount of Western knee-jerking over Britain not creating the first Human Rights Bill, if they (Malian scholars) somehow find that manuscript in the thousands that are still untranslated.

I cant tell if the woman is playing a wood drum or something plastic, but, this has to be something from an older custom

heck, i played that groove on a gig the other night, it was a rumba

which is just unbeleivable connectable truth of the origins of certain principles of music….that come out of Africa…did the pygmies get this from the migratorial people or did they have some of this concept before?

The first three youtubes dont even have drums , but, they all have similar concepts as the last youtube which are the Zulu, who are using drums.Notice the very similar steps with their legs and feet.This is slightly differant from dances you would find in central and west and east Africa, yet they have similar groove concepts

All are tied in by similar rhythm concepts, repeated call responce pretty much duple triple meter . I have seen some San beat cadences that go into 5 beats or even more complicated, which just makes my point that each differant culture has things unique to themselves, but , in other expresions , they are tied with other peoples expresions in Africa , by a similar concept.

Just so we can see a contrast of ancient culture , and dark skinned people from Papua New Guinea, and how it really is a differant aproach from the African concepts I am brining in…notice how they change the beat in mid tempo, and go back and forth with it…the African clips I bring in drill the groove into the ground from beginning to end…and. the most unbeleivable thing, is being able to see how the roots of some of the ancient pre colonial African cultures I bring in are the origins of many dance and grooves in the Afro diasporic Americas, like Rumba, Cha cha cha, Gua Gua Co, Samba, Funk, Jazz, Hip Hop, Maracatu, Bloco Afro, Candomble, Santera, Voodoo, etc etc

….just to make it clear, you can find many ancient cultures that use beats, trance, dancing, but, its exactly how it is used in the ancient pre colonial, pre Arab pre European Africa,

And they are powerful and nothing short of genius

Who ever started layering one rhythm over another in pollyrhythmic , call responce , syncopated beats and grooves with dances taylor made to go with them , were mathamatical visionaries , with incredible concepts of how to get in touch with the human spirit and the intuition and turn off the thinking brain

@Tyron Why are you so offended by Africans proudly stating where they are from, their ethnic identity (tribe/clan)? I find that very worrying on your part.

You said:
‘It’s okay for whites, asians, and native-americans to be who they are, but not black people’.
Notice how you said, asians and native american’s, not yellows and reds? If an African is an African that is EXACTLY who they are.

Do You KNOW who you are Tyron?

You said
” I understand the desire of others to be “African.” That’s what all of this insanity is about”

Desire to be “African”. There ain’t no desire, you either Are African or you’re not. What’s with the quotation marks around Africa?

Let me take a wild guess, are you American?

Would you be happy if a Masai shed away his clothes, unlearned all of his customs, language and just sat there on mount Kilimanjaro with nothing mumbling ‘I’m only Black, I’m only Black, I’m only Black, I’m only Black.’

I am an African woman, East African to be exact, I speak Swahili, amongst other languages and I am proud of it. Do these words make you spit out bile in disgust? I have smooth brown dark skin, and I know that because my skin is rich in melanin I am also a black woman, many will see me as just that I know this. But you would prefer me and every other dark skinned African or African descended person to forget everything and just focus on a layer of skin. Would you like us to swap all our traditional garments and clothing and instead wear FUBU and Baby Phat? Or how about we swapped our traditional dances for the Electric Slide. Is that ‘Black’ enough for ya?

Do you believe that ‘Black’ history started with the transatlantic slave trade? that Africa didn’t have a rich history before Arab and European enslavement? That we were all sitting around, picking yellow Gloop out of our big toenails with no culture or ethnic identity until the white slavers came, and brought their inferior concept of us being ‘Just Blacks’. Notice I said JUST. Because when you’re ‘just black’ you are just a skin colour, what is your story? What is your language? What are your roots? There are Indians that are Black, Aborigines that are black, but they are not African (Not recently so). Being an African holds more weight and meaning than a single ‘colour’

Why do you fear the word ‘African’ Tyrone. If you say it five times in the mirror, I promise nothing ‘dark’ or Voodo-tastic will happen to you; it’s a safe word really. That Dark continent phase was just scare tactics.

Don’t get angry at Africans from the motherland for being proud of who we are. We have nothing to be ashamed of, all of mankind came through us! You are seriously starting to remind me of those outdated history books. I think you are the perfect candidate that seriously needs a trip around the motherland.

I never thought I’d see the day when I would agree with ‘Satanforce’, but early in this thread he said something about the ‘Black- American Gaze’ of Africa. I think that’s what you have Tyrone. If you as a Black American ONLY see yourself as ‘Black’. Good for you. If that label ALONE makes you feel whole and satisfied. Then so be it.

By the sounds of it, you could do with learning and appreciating the diversity of Africa. I would buy you an ‘Around Africa’ plane ticket because, but unfortunately the recession has hit my finances kinda hard..

@ Abagond“Your history fits a narrative of White Saviours and Helpless Darkies. That does not disprove it, of course, but it does make it suspect.”

That statement says more about how you interpret history than how I do.

I think it’s beyond dispute that the Middle East was ahead of both Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa in terms of plant and animal domestication, and also the technological and cultural advances that accompany those things.

West Africa did develop agriculture independently (something Europe never did). But the drying up of the Sahara would have reduced the extent to which Middle Eastern innovations could flow to Africa. Perhaps my use of the term “barrier” sounds absolute; impediment is more correct a term. In any case, Europeans was blessed with a location from where they could absorb more readily from the Middle East than SS Africa.

I personally make no apologies about saying that black Africa was not as advanced technologically as certain other regions. What I am not saying for a second though, is that black Africans are any worse, or less intelligent or whatever because of it. In fact, I think Afrocentrists who are obsessed with claiming Egypt and whatever else as black (as opposed to brown or beige, for instance) fall into this trap. Whatever colour the Egyptians were makes absolutely no difference to how awesome one should believe black people to be. That anyone of the West African diaspora should tie their self esteem to the achievements of Egypt or Ethiopia is ridiculous IMO. The fact that Europeans and East Asians achieved a higher level of technological development is primarily due to luck, just as Diamond says.

@ Bulanik:“…as I said before upthread, but you may not have seen those earlier comments…”
I can’t really follow anything on this thread because every other post is B.R. talking to himself about intangible musical genius.

@ resjan:

“Ethiopians were not influenced by Europeans, it was the exact opposite.” I didn’t even say they were, but whatever. Ethiopian culture was influenced by the Middle East, and vice versa. Part of their genetic makeup is Caucasian (for want of a better term).

Regarding “Pre-colonial Africa”, yes that does also include Africa prior to Arab invasion.
There are of course modern traditions and customs that are Arab or Euro influenced but have been ingrained as part of the African culture. Such as ways of worship that have been influenced by the imported religions of Christainity ans Islam. I think the great thing about Africans is the ability to make these foreign exports our own. Like for example, with Christianity, If you went to a typical Nigerian church, it would be very different to a church you’ll find in Buckinghamshire in England; even though it was the English missionaries that brought that same branch of Christianity to Nigeria. The hymns may be the same, but the dances, additional beats, dress code and vibe of the Nigerian church would be very ‘African’ in it’s essence. That ‘Africaness’ which I speak of existed prior to Arab and European interaction.

You said

“Do you really think that implies the Arab and Islamic aspects also ? It sounds more like it refers to the recent colonisers, which wouldnt even include the European slave trade since they didnt colonise Africa, they were buying slaves for their colonies in the Americas… ….or , what do you think about that? Are you considering the Arabs colonisers also ?”

I’m not sure what you meant by this paragraph because I think it is basic knowledge that Europeans, Western Europe specifically DID colonise almost all of Africa, That’s why there are yearly celebrations of ‘Independence’ days. Heck, Britain even waited as recently as 1980 to give Zimbabwe independence!! (Rhodesia is a dirty word in my household).

So although, the European slave traders themselves may have not ventured further than the coastal towns and settled into mainland Africa, they set the ball rolling for the ’empires’ of western Europe to force their way in and take over.
Yes, I would most definitely consider the Arabs colonisers. To me personally, their enslavement and invasions in Africa (past and present) is just as important to remember as the more recent European ones.

So to answer your question, yes, regarding ‘precolonial Africa’ I would consider that Africa before European AND Arab invasions

Oh well, Eurasion sensation, another person frivilising the genius of pre colonial Africa..and, implicated that black Africans arnt as advanced back then so they couldnt have contributed anything…..!!!????

You have to be kidding….by way of European slavey, that black culture was ripped from Africa, and even though they tried to suffocate it, bury it and kill it off, that culture absolutly dominated the culture there in the Americas, and guess what, the whole world, even where you are sucking off all that black culture in the Americas right now ( you do know what cha cha, samba, funk etc is, right? I dont know any Aurstalian cultural musical contributions that are that well known right now)..you better get for real there …I guess that means nothing to people like him…..just take it all out of your life and see where you all would be…let alone the fact that the world could learn a whole whole lot about the philosophy and how to get in touch with the intuition and feeling ( you know ,like that old James Brown song ” I got the feeling…”, ) to learn how to live better in this world…oh, but you go on back , Eurasion sensation, and read your books and think you are getting what happened back then

not to mention the Dogon were advanced in astrology as far back as the Egyptions or more

Look people, you cant look at ancient Africa without understanding a big part of it is dance / drum ….

The problems with reading words is, every one starts making up make beleive ideas of what ancient africans were like…sorry to burst your bubbles, they have a lot to do with the music dance clips im bringing in

I beg to differ. What you fail to understand is that Ethiopians colonised the Middle East thousands of years ago. I don’t remember the Middle East ever colonising Ethiopia. If so, please alert me to your historical evidence (I already presented SOME of mine).Yes, Muhammed sought refuge in Ethiopia, but neither he nor any Arabian ever colonized it.

Ethiopia is a very diverse country, and the majority of indigenous Ethiopians,like the Hamer, Gurage, Afar, Oromo, etc. are not partly “Caucasian” (a 18th century, unscientific term invented by a racist based on a theory of classification of how beautiful he believed people were).

The “Caspian culture” article you referenced strongly suggests the African origins of the Caspian culture. One dead giveaway was the widespread use of “ostrich eggshells”. Ostriches are a “sub-Saharan” species. Also, N. African cave paintings that date to that era show dark brown people with some white animals (proving that they could have portrayed themselves with pale skin if they wanted to). Furthermore, the cranial measurements of the ancient Caspians do not fit the “caucasoid” classification (btw I don’t believe cranial classifications are a legitimate way of determining race), so new race names were invented by racist anthropologists to describe them. So, sorry, that’s not evidence of any prehistoric European presence in Africa. If you could somehow prove that the “Caspians” were paedophiles or zoophiles, then we might believe you.

Roxanne, thanks for your clarification….I will continue trying to use that terminology, even if i sometimes slip back in to the old terminology

I know what you mean about how Africans can make it their own, Its very important for me to concentrate on the cultures ive been tying together with out the Arab, Christian, European, and Islam , because, when you mix them, something gets lost from the original culture, which has these specific properties Im talking about . There are too many rules and restrictions and desire to bury the original concepts by the people who are trying to impose these outside influences on Africa.

I have to thank Dahoman X for at least admitting he is not an ethno musicologist, and I think he knows somewhat about what Im talking about, but, I really dont think its getting through here to everyone….Im not even an ethno musicologist, Im a decades old profesional musician who made a choice about what concepts are the most powerful for me and have put huge amounts of time in my life discovering what those concept are and trying to define them, something the sholars dont do, except maybe Dr Ani

And ive been in the precence of the highest leval of some of these practiicionors in cultureal centers in New York and then went to llive 25 years in a country that has the highest African population of any country in Africa except Nigeria ( or Afro descendant if you want to get technical), to really get gigantic insights to these concepts and the roots and origins and how they manifested in the Americas , that affects most all of us today…the whole world is revebrating to these concepts

It’s the same with the Benin Empire. They were falsely branded as being “massive slave traders”, despite the fact that they had no need for the money gained, because they were already wealthy due to their own healthy economy. Eresoyen, who was the 61st Oba (king) in 1735, was shot at by a Dutch slave merchant named Willem Hogg, because he refused to help him recapture the blacks that sought refuge in Benin City.

No, I am interested to know more about what is rarely mentioned about Africa’s past. For example, the letter from Mani-Congo, the ruler of a Congo state, who wrote this letter to King John III of Portugal in 1526:

That looks like it was taken from the excellent ‘King Leopold’s Ghost’, required reading for any educated layman interested in in Africa. There are also several good books about pre-Colonial Akan Empire on archive.org. I’ll make a Listmania on Amazon, and probably make short Abagond style reviews on my blog.

I have to thank Dahoman X for at least admitting he is not an ethno musicologist, and I think he knows somewhat about what Im talking about

Actually, I’d be quite interested in hearing an ethno musicologist’s take on this. It is fascinating how music remains as central in diasporic African communities as it is on the Continent.

@ Bulanik

What about the Africans involved in the trade….

I.M.O., there is no continuity between the traditional forms of servitude and the transatlantic slave trade. They are 2 different things.
The kingdom of Dahomey, in the southern part of my country, was one of the main providers of the transatlantic slave trade. Slavery in Dahomey was basically a monopoly of the King and the European traders. To the point that the Dahomean official in charge of the slave trade was called Yovogan (literally “chief of the Whites” in fongbe).

@ B.R.
I’m not belittling African culture, I’m just complaining that every other post on this thread is you talking about it to no one in particular. 5, 6 posts in a row… come on, man.

@ resjan:
If I show you scientific evidence, you might just tell me it comes from white scientists and is not to be trusted. Thus it’s pointless to argue with you, really.

Btw, your citing ostrich eggs doesn’t prove that whoever was using them was black or otherwise.
Regarding “Caucasian”, I agree it’s an outdated term, but at least we know what it implies. I can use “West Eurasian” if you like. In any case, there is clear evidence of West Eurasian back-migration and genetic input in NE Africa. It’s not coincidence that out of all the people in Africa, those from the Horn look most like the people from the Middle East, which happens to be next door. Especially given the early development of farming and herding in the Middle East, which is obviously going to lead to population dispersal into nearby areas, including N and NE Africa. Do you really think that with the sudden increase in population in the Fertile Crescent caused by farming, none of those people are going to venture into Africa?
Many of the languages of Ethiopia (Amharic, Tigre, Gurage) stem from a migration from South Arabia about 2800 years ago. Look it up.
Likewise in N Africa, the Berbers are a mix of phenotypes, but many of them could pass for European. Zinedine Zidane the soccer player is a good example. They have a history in Africa that pre-dates the Arabs and Cyrene.

I’ve never said there were no black people in the very north of Africa. But there were clearly non-black people there too, for thousands of years. The cultures that developed there probably had elements of both; however, climate and terrain make it easier for people to move along the northern coast than across the desert.

It is assumed that Dahomey engaged in slave trade after 1727, when it invaded the then independent port of Ouidah. According to historian I. Akinjogbin, in the early years of its contact with Europeans the kingdom was reluctant to slavery (this is contested by other historians, tough).
I will try and find more details about how the whole thing was organized.

And what was the lasting impact of the Trade with Europeans on Dahomey?

It became crucial to its economy and its politics, as it was the main source of acquisition of european-made firearms. The kingdom was a military-oriented state whose kings had an obligation to increase their territory. Also, Dahomey was then a vassal of the Yoruba kingdom of Oyo and getting rid of this tutelage was kind of an obsession for the kings of Agbome. Independence was eventually achieved under King Ghezo in early 19th century.
The trade also provided tobacco, alcohol, cloths and luxury goods which were used in ceremonies and sacrifices organized in the capital.
One can imagine that the continuous military campaigns must have created a very chaotic environment.

Regarding the consequences of the slave trade at the continental level, one the best assessments IMO has been done by Louise- Marie Diop-Maes in her work on the evolution of the African demography between the 8th and 20th century:

rechearchers endeavoured to study the effects of the different slavery trades, and, more particularly within Black Africa itself. According to last the clarifications 22 to 26 million individuals at least, have left Subsaharian Africa in between 1550 to 1900 , either across The Atlantic (for more than half of them) , or across Sahara, The Red Sea and The Indian Ocean .But the losses are far from reflecting the whole of the demographicic effects on the large subsaharian triangle. Even before, the settling up of the slavery trade on a large scale, the Portugueses, the Arabs and Moroccans (1591) provoked many killed and mass destructions. This point is too often forgotten.During the following decades, ” The economic context of slave trade has greatly determined the bursting out of internal conflicts and civil wars, as well as the multiplication of country people’s fleecing “. Which is what C.BECKER and V.MARTIN observed in Senegambia.

The rich towns on the Eastern coast, which remains are still visible , have been destructed, Mozambic and Zambezia, have been ruined, as well as Kongo, Angola, and by other means , the loop of the Niger. The ancient kingdoms and the Empires broke up. Slave trade caused at the same period many shifts in population which did not take place without clashes.During about three centuries , by force of circumstances, nearly all the kingdoms, reduced to the size of principalities, accumulated slaver prisoners of war to be given in exchange with firearms and diverse European or Arabic goods. In Congo, in Dahomey, in Senegal, some kings tried to rebel against slave exportation, but it was in vain. The system was the strongest. The percentage of slaves in the population became enormous (nearly half of it). ” The birth rate of a servile population is often low “ [68][69]. The slaves were distributed among marketplaces, slaveries,slave/reserve villages, under the prince’s authority and lastly notables and individuals.C.BECKER notes in Senegambia the depopulation of the border regions in between the kingdoms; these areas are reconquered by the bush or the forest ” although they were densively populated areas “ [70].

Similar phenomenons are observed in almost all regions:(Fuuta Jallon, Benin,Oyo, Dahomey, (cf. the paper given by B.BARRY and that of J.E.INIKORI at the colloquium in Nantes). In Kongo and in Angola it was even worse.W.G.L.RANDLES reports, according to the Portuguese archives, that thousands of warriers were killed and a vast crowd of slaves were captured in Angola by the Portugueses themselves. The inland population, had ” seriously decreased “ because of the internal wars, of the plunders to capture slaves and the results of smallpox, as Manuel FERNANDES puts it himself (1670). The region of Ambacca had lost in 1782, the 2/3 of its inhabitants [71].

Indeed there has been the building up of new harbour-towns along the Atlantic coast, but also, at some certain variable distances around and specially inland, the emptying of people from plundering, burning down, and stealing, ” carrying away to slavery all those they possibly could “. The cultures, he writes, were abandonned, famine settled down for good. ” One witnessed a dreadfull decline of the Negro civilisation… the warrior becoming thereafter the unique master.
The Pax maliana was but a vague remembrance of the golden age of Sudan “.The villages settle on easily defendable but difficult to cultivate high points,autochthonous arts and crafts are withering so is the inter regional trade of local goods (which was, and we have proofs of it, very busy before).

@Eurasian Sensation
1.There is no evidence of Asian or European migration to Africa prior to 3000 BC. There is ample evidence of African migration to Europe and Asia as early as 60,000 BC to present. You don’t seem to comprehend that Arabisation of North Africa comes much much later in history.

It says “They observed a high degree of genetic homogeneity among the NW African Y chromosomes of Moroccan Arabs, Moroccan Berbers, and Saharawis, leading the authors to hypothesize that “the ARABIZATION and Islamization of NW Africa, starting during the 7th CENTURY AD”

Furthermore, “LITTLE is known of the origins of the indigenous population of the Maghrib, the Berbers, EXCEPT that they have always been a COMPOSITE people. After the 8th century CE, a process of ARABIZATION affected the BULK of the Berbers”

So Zidane, and most other so-called “berbers” have Arab ancestry (i.e. are NOT indigenous).

2. Semitic languages come from Africa. The oldest evidence of a Semitic script comes from the Nile river valley in southern Egypt (Wadi el-Hol), and the oldest evidence of a “South Arabian” script comes from pre-Axumite Ethiopia. They predate anything ever found in West Asia, FYI. There is also much much greater Semitic language diversity in Africa, which further supports the African origin of these languages.

Many historians, such as Herodotus (c. 450 BC), attested to the presence of ancient Ethiopians in Arabia: “But there are also a great many other tribes of the ETHIOPIANS, some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighbouring country of ARABIA…”

3. I pointed out the widespread use of ostrich eggshells to say it implies a “sub-saharan” origin of the “Caspians,” since ostriches are a “sub-saharan” species. I don’t recall saying anything about “black”. Again, there is no evidence to suggest Eurasians migrated to Africa anywhere near that period of time.

I understand your viewpoint. It’s the same one invented by racists in the late 1700s/ early 1800s to make Africa seem uncivilised and the Eurasians as the civilised. There is evidence of agriculture in Africa that is just as old as anything ever found in Asia, BTW, and domestication of cattle in Africa thousands of years before Asia.

Civilization along the Nile surpassed anything found anywhere else in the ancient world, as attested by historians around the ancient world:

“Concerning Egypt itself I shall extend my remarks to a great length, because there is no country that possesses so many wonders, nor any that has such a number of works which defy description. ” (Herodotus)

@ resjan:
It’s ironic, we can hear people talk about the white-washing of black history, but you’ve just done the same thing by claiming the Berbers as all black. The link you posted says the Berbers were a COMPOSITE population; what the article implies is not clear, but I would read that as having more than just sub-Saharan ancestry.
Another way to read the data of that article, by the way, is that Berbers and Arabs have genetic similarities not just because Berbers were Arabized, but also because those who consider themselves Arabs today were once Berbers. Meaning that they became culturally Arab while still being genetically largely Berber. This happens commonly when a conquering elite imposes its culture on a subject people – an example is Sudan, where the Sudanese Arabs are still primarily Nubian/Nilotic – they are more culturally than genetically Arab. Turkey is another example – the people are genetically similar to Greeks but speak the language of the Central Asian Turks who conquered Anatolia.

Here’s a completely different interpretation of genetic data:“Both Arabic and Berber-speaking populations live in Tunisia. Berbers are commonly considered as in situ descendants of peoples who settled roughly in Palaeolithic times, and posterior demographic events such as the arrival of the Neolithic, the Arab migrations, and the expulsion of the “Moors” from Spain, had a strong cultural influence. Nonetheless, the genetic structure and the population relationships of the ethnic groups living in Tunisia have been poorly assessed. In order to gain insight into the paternal genetic landscape and population structure, more than 40 Y-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms and 17 short tandem repeats were analyzed in five Tunisian ethnic groups (three Berber-speaking isolates, one Andalusian, and one Cosmopolitan Arab). The most common lineage was the North African haplogroup E-M81 (71%), being fixed in two Berber samples (Chenini–Douiret and Jradou), suggesting isolation and genetic drift. Differential levels of paternal gene flow from the Near East were detected in the Tunisian samples (J-M267 lineage over 30%); however, no major sub-Saharan African or European influence was found.”(http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/tunisian-y-chromsomes-and-mtdna.html)

“There is evidence of agriculture in Africa that is just as old as anything ever found in Asia, BTW, and domestication of cattle in Africa thousands of years before Asia.”
And I’m sure you can find links to it, and I’m sure I can find links to say otherwise. That’s the wonderful thing about the internet.
FWIW, independently developed agriculture is about 9000 years old in the Middle East, 8000 years old in China, and maybe 4000 years old in Africa, and about the same in the Americas. But you know what? It’s not a race. Whoever done it first doesn’t get a prize for being more clever.

“I understand your viewpoint. It’s the same one invented by racists in the late 1700s/ early 1800s to make Africa seem uncivilised and the Eurasians as the civilised.”
Just as your viewpoint is the one invented in the 20th century to make black African history seem more grandiose.

One thing you may not get about me – I’m just concerned with historical accuracy. I don’t have an agenda to make any race seem better or worse here. If it turns out that the ancient Berbers and Egyptians and Ethiopians WERE completely black African with no trace of Eurasian DNA, then that’s fine. It makes no difference to my life and doesn’t actually effect anything in this world. It wouldn’t make it any better or worse to be white, and it wouldn’t make it any better or worse to be black. However, it’s just not correct. I’m interested in the scientific perspective, which means trying to establish the truth. The Afrocentrist perspective is about trying to establish the truth only so long as it fits the narrative of African greatness.

The Afrocentrist perspective of claiming Ancient Egypt as an example of how great black civilization can be is actually just buying into the same twisted logic that white racists have: namely that a race’s worth can be measured by its capacity for advanced culture and technology. Here’s what I mean: Just say someone is Melanesian, from New Guinea. Now, Melanesians have never invented a civilisation on the scale of Ancient Egypt, and were not advanced as the kingdoms of West Africa. I don’t think they ever had writing until the 20th century. Does that mean that Melanesians are inferior to Europeans, Asians and Africans, because they didn’t invent these things? Hell no. Just because my ancestors did this or that doesn’t make me any better as a human being. Melanesian cultures, African cultures, European cultures – they are fine as they are without having to falsely inflate their achievements.

If it turns out that the ancient Berbers and Egyptians and Ethiopians WERE completely black African with no trace of Eurasian DNA, then that’s fine.

I just wanted to quickly say this.

Even the father of the modern day Afrocentric movement, Chancellor Williams, admits in his book “The Destruction of Black Civilization” (which I own and have read several times) that the Egyptians were a people composed of Blacks and mulattoes who were Black Africans mixed with White Asiatic people of Upper Egypt. So, I really don’t see how anyone can claim Blacks within the movement say that the Egyptians were just Black Africans. Hell, even Dr. John Henrik Clarke says the Egyptians eventually became a mixed race over the thousands of years of it’s existence.

I think what is important is that the actual claim is that Egypt has it’s origins in so-called Black Africa; not that it was just Black or was always Black.

Personally, I care more about the advancement of Blacks NOW more than history, but thought I’d toss in my two cents.

So, I really don’t see how anyone can claim Blacks within the movement say that the Egyptians were just Black Africans. Hell, even Dr. John Henrik Clarke says the Egyptians eventually became a mixed race over the thousands of years of it’s existence.

Yeah he did say this…but not before clarifying that Kemet had 10,000 years of all black dynasties and populations before any penetration of “others”. This was proven by Diop’s research and genetic testing of so called mummies.

You should also check out what Dr. Spencer Wells and Dr. Michael Bradley (both white scholars) have to say on the matter; if you haven’t already done so.Their theories are not entirely different than the “Afrocentrists”.

I think people have it twisted to say Ethiopians and Kemites–which were the same folk were “mixed”.

Like i said; Dr. Spencer Wells and Dr. Michael Bradley will tell you different–i mean since so many black people like to rely on white scholarship; anyway you don’t even have to take their word for it…the ancient Hippocrates had no problem giving credit where it is due…

“black”, “white”, “mixed”, “race”, these are all recent concepts that are total anachronisms in an Ancient Egyptian context.

Why does everyone still want to rely on the theory of races to describe things. It is giving it to much importance.

I think it is a very American vision of things (from most Americans), nowadays, that tends to racialize anything and everything, thereby confusing facts and making it even more difficult to counteract racists. Unfortunately.

Yeah he did say this…but not before clarifying that Kemet had 10,000 years of all black dynasties and populations before any penetration of “others”.

Considering that Egyptian dynasties only lasted around 4,000 years, I don’t see how he could have possibly stated this. In fact, I’m fairly certain he didn’t. If you can quote that from his book, I will gladly retract my statement.

I think people have it twisted to say Ethiopians and Kemites–which were the same folk were “mixed”.

I’m only speaking in Afrocentric terms and I’m not saying if I agree or disagree with those terms.

“black”, “white”, “mixed”, “race”, these are all recent concepts that are total anachronisms in an Ancient Egyptian context.

I think you can most certainly apply modern day racial labels on any Human population. Aren’t they arbitrary classification to begin with anyway? Do I agree with doing that? It depends. Is there a benefit to doing so?

If I am an Islander who looks African (although Europeans are more related to Africans than Africans are to Islanders) and I go down to Mississippi and roam into Klan country, is that Klanman going to give two f*cks if I am an actual African or not? He’s going to see a Black face and that’s all there is to it. You can argue that racial classifications are bullsh*t, but as long as you can still get killed for being Black, you cannot simply dismiss them as being outdated. You cannot sit there and say “Why haven’t we gotten past this yet?”. We haven’t and, like it or not, race exists in the minds of men who can kill you.

Considering that Egyptian dynasties only lasted around 4,000 years, I don’t see how he could have possibly stated this. In fact, I’m fairly certain he didn’t. If you can quote that from his book, I will gladly retract my statement.

Umm he doesn’t state it in his book, but in the film about his work and research “A Great and Mighty Walk”….you can look it up on youtube i am sure.

@ phoebebrunelle:“So what about the Eurocentrist’s perspective that causes them to lie, distort and manipulate certain truths out of history to fit their narratives of European/white greatness???”

Of course this has happened in the course of history, and I am saying that the Afrocentrist perspective is guilty of exactly the same thing, just with a different colour attached.

It’s hard to have a reasoned debate with an impassioned Afrocentrist, because whatever scientific data is shown to them that refutes their argument, they can dismiss it with the comeback that whoever compiled that data is being “Eurocentric” and therefore cannot be trusted.

I do want to say that I believe there were several major civilizations within and around Africa far before pre-recorded history; civilizations that were destroyed and left little to no records. I have no proof of these things, of course, but I still think there are things we will probably never know about the past.

It’s hard to have a reasoned debate with an impassioned Afrocentrist, because whatever scientific data is shown to them that refutes their argument, they can dismiss it with the comeback that whoever compiled that data is being “Eurocentric” and therefore cannot be trusted.

I agree with you on this point. However, there is no global Historical Authority and basically anyone with enough time and money can research anything and write a book. This goes for people who work for universities as well. So, history is not really something that is unified and the left hand can be doing something the right is completely unaware of.

This is the primary reason for my loss of interest in history. It’s far too easy to manufacture, obfuscate, and distort information. Also, as I’ve stated before, I really don’t think people learn from history any way. It’s used to be a nice way to pass the time; now it’s just irrelevant – to me anyhow.

@ resjan:There is also much much greater Semitic language diversity in Africa, which further supports the African origin of these languages.

That is easily explained by history; there is less language diversity in Arabia because the rise of Islam led to a more homogeneous linguistic and cultural identity in Arabia. Ethiopia’s Semitic languages are still around because the groups that speak them were more fragmented and were not assimilated by a cultural juggernaut like Arabic/Islamic culture.

1. It’s clear to me you are deliberately misconstruing my statements. I never said all berbers were black–not once. I simply pointed to a genetic study that suggests most modern so-called “berbers” along the NW African coast have significant Arab ancestry (and the blog you referenced does not refute this), due to the well known migration from Arabia that commenced in the 7th century AD. I also pointed out that there is no evidence of migration from Asia or Europe prior to 3000 BC, and you have yet to prove otherwise.

2. My viewpoint is shared by ancient historians whose own attestations I have presented to you, and supported by archaeological evidence. What you fail to realise about “Egypt” is that it began in the south by Africans:

Diodorus (c. 60 BC): “Osiris being come to the borders of Ethiopia, raised high banks on either side of the river, lest, in the time of its inundation it should overflow the country more than was convenient make it marish and boggy; and made flood-gates to let in the water by degrees, as far as was necessary. Thence he passed through Arabia, bordering upon the Red sea as far as to India, and the utmost coasts that were inhabited; he built likewise many cities in India, one of which he called Nysa”

Diodorus’ statement was made nearly 2000 years ago, not in the 20th century. So, if anyone is a revisionist it is you and the other racist historians with your viewpoint.

South of “Egypt” you will find plenty of archaeological evidence of the foundations of pre-dynastic culture. Here are some archaeological sites as evidence: Wadi Kubbaniya (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/wadi/hd_wadi.htm — note the article states, “These sites demonstrate that the early inhabitants of the Nile valley and its nearby deserts had learned how to exploit local environments, developing economic strategies that were maintained in later cultural traditions of pharaonic Egypt.”), Jebel Sahaba, Wadi Halfa, etc.

I understand you are desperate to separate ancient “Egypt,” N. Africa, etc. from Africa and credit Asia and Europe when you have absolutely no evidence to do so. I never stated that Africans need Egypt to legitimise their intelligence or self-worth, I simply refuted your erroneous notions that ancient Egyptian and N. African civilisations came from Eurasia. All evidence points to their southern origins.

With regard to Ethiopians, I’ll try to be more clear this time: They were the first to colonise Arabia. Arabia never colonised Ethiopia. I am aware that Muhammed and others sought refuge in Ethiopia, as aforementioned.

All I’m arguing is that Ethiopians entered Arabia first, and much much much later, some Arabians sought refuge in Ethiopia, which can be proven. I’ll remind you that ancient historians like Herodotus contradict your theories:

“But there are also a great many other tribes of the ETHIOPIANS, some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighbouring country of ARABIA…”

As to Semitic languages, again, they originated in Africa….see the wadi el-hol inscription in southern egypt, or the pre-aksumite “south Arabian” script in Ethiopia, both of which predate anything found in West Asia.

@ resjan:
You inferred that Berbers only look Caucasian because they mixed with the Arabs.

This article reiterates what I said earlier: that Arab-Islamic conquest was more cultural than genetic:

“Attested presence of Caucasian people in Northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times. From the archaeological record it has been proposed that, as early as 45,000 years ago (ya), anatomically modern humans, most probably expanded the Aterian stone industry from the Maghrib into most of the Sahara [1]. More evolved skeletal remains indicate that 20,000 years later the Iberomaurusian makers, replaced the Aterian culture in the coastal Maghrib. Several hypothesis have been forwarded concerning the Iberomaurusian origin. They can be resumed in those which propose an arrival, from the East, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa, and those which point to west Mediterranean Europe, either from the Iberian Peninsula, across the Gibraltar Strait, or from Italy, via Sicily, as their most probable homeland [2]. Between 10,000 and 6,000 ya the Neolithic Capsian industry flourished farther inland. The historic penetration in the area of classical Mediterranean cultures, ending with the Islamic domination, supposed a strong cultural influx. However, it seems that the demic impact was not strong enough to modify the prehistoric genetic pool.”
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC270091/)

Remember as well that a lot of the current sub-Saharan African presence in North Africa is the legacy of the slaves brought there by Arabs. Counter to the idea that the Arabs made North Africa more “white”, they may have actually made it more “black”.

Regarding Diodorus: aside from the obvious pinch of salt needed when taking the word of 2000 year old historians as fact… he’s talking about Osiris. A GOD.

I’m not trying to say Europeans had anything to do with Egypt. Egypt was indigenous African with influences from the Middle East. However, not all Africans are black. Ancient Egyptians were predominantly like modern Egyptians; Mediterranean/Middle Eastern types who had been in North Africa since the Paleolithic, with some Cushitic/Nilotic admixture which increased moving southward. The Coptic Christians of Egypt, who are the least Arabized in their country and whose liturgical language is descended from ancient Egyptian, fit that same description.

““black”, “white”, “mixed”, “race”, these are all recent concepts that are total anachronisms in an Ancient Egyptian context.

Why does everyone still want to rely on the theory of races to describe things. It is giving it to much importance.

I think it is a very American vision of things (from most Americans), nowadays, that tends to racialize anything and everything, thereby confusing facts and making it even more difficult to counteract racists. Unfortunately.”

well said.

And in my mind, ok egyptians might have been this or that color, but I really do not care weather they were blue or green or purple, the main thing is this: they were africans. It was an african civilization. It was there when we guys in europe were not actually composing religious texts, debating politics, practising medicine with brain surgeries etc. what ever they were doing already then.

Debating about the color of their skin is kind of, well, american in a way. Who cares what was their skin color? Look at the africans now. Their skin color ranges from the pale berbers to the darkest in the planet BUT they are all africans.

For me it seem somehow strange that we, outsiders, still look at Africa as a Black continent, a Dark continent, this or that, and somehow refuse to realize that is is cotinent which is more diverse than whole Asia from Afganistan to Korea and Indonesia.

And guys, white guys, really… Old Egypt was african thing trough and trough. Yes, those pyramids and all those stuff, africans did them. Really. And ethiopians? Yes, they are also africans. That is a fact. And I don’t care about their skin colors, hues or shades, hair styles, lipstick colors, make ups, fashions, jewelries or none of that. They were and are all africans. Period.

That is why you have to look at the culture…and see where the real origins are….you can see the Islamic cultural ties, you can see the Christian cultural ties, the Arab influence, the European influence..

Take all that away and see what you have

The fact that the San and Pygmies are more phenotype similar to the other people next to them compared to the differant phenotypes you can find to the north, is less important that there are unified concepts to these diverse groups and real differances from others.

Culture trumps nationality also… I mean , lots of these countries have changed names and borders even recently…how can nationality be any way to judge who the people are also and identify themselves? Most of these borders are or were difined by colonisers also

“All Africans” doesnt satisfy me either, since I live on a continent that has the same thing, and, its very awkward to me to lump Brazil into a bunch of other countries with differant languages and cultures .But I can show you cultural similaritites in Afro diasporic religious rites from Candomble from Brazil, VooDoo from Haiti and Santera from Cuba

You said (I don’t know how you guy manage to quote others here): I think you can most certainly apply modern day racial labels on any Human population. Aren’t they arbitrary classification to begin with anyway?

Can you re-read what you just wrote here ? Isn’t it totally contradictory ?

“Do I agree with doing that? It depends. Is there a benefit to doing so?

If I am an Islander who looks African (although Europeans are more related to Africans than Africans are to Islanders) and I go down to Mississippi and roam into Klan country, is that Klanman going to give two f*cks if I am an actual African or not? He’s going to see a Black face and that’s all there is to it. You can argue that racial classifications are bullsh*t, but as long as you can still get killed for being Black, you cannot simply dismiss them as being outdated. You cannot sit there and say “Why haven’t we gotten past this yet?”. We haven’t and, like it or not, race exists in the minds of men who can kill you.”

Of course, KKK members and racists are racist and believe in the BS. But should you ? Should you justify it by explaining thousands of years-old facts based on THEIR theory ? How will you then reject their assertions that Egyptian were white if you stand on the same a-scientific and anachronistic ground ?

WHERE did I imply what you put in my mouth : “Why haven’t we gotten past this yet ?” Nowhere and never. We are not on a KKK blog here. This is a blog that, it seems to me, tries to explain things with a scientific (in the sense that it tries to observe facts as they are) and therefore knowledgeable approach. Using the racists’ approach simply doesn’t work. There are African scholars who adopt the same stance, they consider a racist/racialist approach as alienating (which it is) and try to not use racial vocabulary to analyze African facts (even though it is difficult because racialism has penetrated all of our minds.

That doesn’t mean that they reject the fact that most people live in the illusion of race being a fact. But it is a belief and has no place in analyzing history that predates it by thousands of years.

even though I suggest that we do not use the racial references to analyze antiquity, I am not saying that I don’t care about the color of the people we are referring to. I simply think we should be very careful not to perpetuate race-ism by using it in a scientific/historical context.

I say very clearly that the Ancient Egyptian were dark-skinned people, like most of the inhabitants of Africa, some VERY dark-skinned, that doesn’t mean I have to rely on the theory of races.

It still bothers racists (which I like when it does), because they would like to be able to say “they were white”, or to sound more modern or scientific: “they were leucoderms”.

No, they weren’t, they weren’t green either, they were dark brown. What the theory of races assembled as one “race”, that they called black.

So I am very careful not to evacuate the fact of their dark skin. Do you see what I mean ?

Yes, I agree completely. As a person who has been in Egypt for some time and who has seen a lot of drawings, pictures and paintings etc. of the acient egyptians I totally agree. I also am convinced that the more southern culture of Nile was the original birth place of the whole thing, Nubia that is, people whom egyptians presented in their paintings and drawings being as darker than themselves.

But the debate on the idea that Egypt was white/non black/black seems to override the one fact that, no matter what color of the skin the egyptians had at that time, they were africans. Period.

To conclude, I think that it is time we stopped giving racists the impression that they are “right”, because they are not.
Why then use their words, when we can describe things otherwise. Their words participate in the subjugation that is essential to the theory of races. There is no theory without the words. It’s quite simple. It doesn’t mean denying people their own actual skin color or darkness or lightness. It just takes away the manipulation that has been working so well for so many years, to the point that the very victim of that theory sometimes tend to claim it for themselves.

This is the things that racists hate the most: when you take away their essence. They die.

“black”, “white”, “mixed”, “race”, these are all recent concepts that are total anachronisms in an Ancient Egyptian context.

Why does everyone still want to rely on the theory of races to describe things. It is giving it to much importance.

Then you say:

even though I suggest that we do not use the racial references to analyze antiquity, I am not saying that I don’t care about the color of the people we are referring to.

Can you explain this, because it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. If you don’t believe in racial profiling, why should you care what color the Ancient Egyptians were? Do you want to ban the racial system or not? Do you wish for a color coded system, which is basically the same thing?

I’m not saying you don’t have a point but i think its faulty for us to assume that people in antiquity did not have a sense of how they looked in comparison to others… Sheba said it many times that she was “black” and comely–and was this not in ancient times?

“But the debate on the idea that Egypt was white/non black/black seems to override the one fact that, no matter what color of the skin the egyptians had at that time, they were africans. Period.”

Exactly. They were indigenous African people and many aspects of their culture testify to that. Skin colour is barely relevant since Africans possess a range of hues just as Europeans do. Your average Scandinavian is much fairer than Mediterranean types and there is variation even within a given geographical location. The Aegean and Italian peninsulas are unquestionably European but racism can separate an ancient region that’s smack-dab in contiguous continental Africa from its Africanness. That’s the “exceptional negro” phenomenon on steroids. It is truly remarkable that so many people (black and white) accept such nonsense without question. “The matrix”.

@Eurasian Sensation
1. It’s important to separate speculation from evidence. “Attested presence of Caucasian people in Northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times” is an opinion, and the genetic study you cited does not even attempt to prove it. It is completely irrelevant.

The study attempts to find the origins of U6 and concludes “The most PROBABLE origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East”, despite the fact of U6 prevalence in places like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya and the Canaries. It is a HYPOTHESIS. Even if it is a correct hypothesis, how do you know what were the physical characteristics of the proto-u6 carriers?

2. Your statement, “a lot of the current sub-Saharan African presence in North Africa is the legacy of the slaves brought there by Arabs” shows your ignorance about the great diversity in that region.

All stereotypically “sub-saharan” Africans who live in N. Africa are not genetically or culturally the same and did not arrive at the same time. Some are recent immigrants and some have thousands of years of family history in that region. Furthermore, all “berbers” (a european term) are not genetically or culturally the same. Many Tuaregs, Gnawas, Siwas, etc are closer genetically to “sub-saharan” Africans, but have lived in N. Africa before any “Arab” slave trade existed.

You seem to disregard a big part of N. African history: the OTTOMAN colonisation (1500s – 1800s). The Ottomans portrayed themselves with pale skin and enslaved as many (if not more) EUROPEAN christian slaves as “sub-saharan” Africans. This undoubtedly changed the genetic makeup of that region.

3. It is debatable whether Osiris was a person who was later deified or a purely mythological figure…I won’t debate it now. But, Diodorus also said, “Now the Ethiopians, as historians relate, were the first of all men and the proofs of this statement, they say, are manifest. For they did not come into their land as immigrants from abroad but were natives of it.”

4. “Egypt was indigenous African with influences from the Middle East.” Please prove that ancient Egypt prior to 2000 BC had “influences from the Middle East” (assuming you mean West Asia). This is more of your speculation.

5. I never said all Africans are “black”! There you go again misconstruing my assertions. I personally don’t think any of them are black, rather various shades brown or pale.

Ok, since my summation of the scientifically accepted consensus will clearly never satisfy you, let me ask you 2 questions so I can better understand your vision of what Egypt looked like.

1. What kind of Africans were the Egyptians?

Obviously Africa is genetically diverse. Were they Nilotes, akin to the South Sudanese? Were they akin to the people who left West Africa in the Bantu expansion? Were they related to the pygmies of Central Africa, or perhaps the San of Southern Africa? Were they Cushitic-types like the Oromo?

2. In that ancient world, where did the range of “African” people end, and where did the range of “West Asian” people begin?

Did they all mutually agree to stick to their respective continents? Or was there some kind of gradient where people had a mix of both genetic components – if so where was this?

You forgot a race of Aficans in a manner that can only be described as racist. you forgot the Boer people in South Africa. They are as African as anyone having had their entire culture and nation born and raised on African soil. There is no other place in the world besides South Africa where this race is evident. The Boer’s in South Africa are an African race whether black Africans like it or not. They are indigenous to Southern Africa.

The problem is, the “darker skinned” people always get the shaft in looking back at history and defining who has made contributions to humanity. The Dogon’s knew many things about the stars that equal what the Egyptions did, but, no one ever talks about that in history books….

There has to be some way to define how the “darker skinned ” people have contributed to civilisation and humanity…that is what will get lost in “they are all Africans”…noted Roxannes solution “pre-colonian Africa”

We are just getting tripped up on semantics…its about intent, the “racists” will just find ways to twist any new ways to define these things so people really have to look at intent

Good point about the Berbers, I saw youtubes where they are differant shades and looks….you know, I just listen to their music and its obvious to me they are on the cusp of what was happening south and of the Arab influences….anthropologists and arceologists ought to learn how to listen to culture , besides dialects, also, it would tell them a lot

Many of the hard sciences are in direct concflict about what was happening back then….so much is changed by the next discovery, how can people be stuck on positions when there might be something new discovered that might blow everything out of the water..Id say the youtubes of the folklorical cultures are the living snapshots…

No one really paid attention to the stuff I found on Kwamla’s site that indicates a 75,000 year old site that was enourmous in south Africa that was built around gold digging

I understand the point about the Boers, there were also many Indians that came over to work in countries in south Africa also who have made up a part of that cultural makeup in those areas

You forgot a race of Aficans in a manner that can only be described as racist. you forgot the Boer people in South Africa. They are as African as anyone having had their entire culture and nation born and raised on African soil. There is no other place in the world besides South Africa where this race is evident. The Boer’s in South Africa are an African race whether black Africans like it or not. They are indigenous to Southern Africa.

Giggles indeed…
Someone here needs to look up the word “indigenous” in a dictionary.

@Dahoman X – Indigenous means: belonging to a certain place. The Boer people of South Africa are a race unto themselves. They are NOT European. They are indigenous to South Africa with their own language, traditions etc – you know NOTHING about South African history if you refute that. The Bantu people are also NOT indigenous to South Africa. So I think you need to do a little more research before you say stupid things.

I gave Europeans the last 18 words of the post. Given that they have only been in Africa for the past 2.77% of the 13,000 years that the post covers, I should have given them at most 14 words. So if anything this post favours them more than it should.

I mean that the boer (or Afrikaner) RACE was created in Africa. The boers are NOT as most people would like to believe purely European in descent. No, they are a race that is uniquely made up in South Africa from roughly 1600 of European (all over Europe and not 1 little country), African, Cape Malay and San descent. A RACE all on their own.
Most Afrikaner families have between 5% and 7% non-white ancestry, such as Khoi African, Indonesian and Indian, as the early Dutch settlement at the Cape allowed inter-racial marriage. During the Apartheid era, race classification was based on appearance and there were many borderline cases.
South Africans of British descent are considered a separate ethnic group from Afrikaners, and their first language is English.

And yes. The people born and raised in Africa are indigenous to Africa. You may be black but you are NOT an African. Even with my white skin I’m more African than you could ever hope to be.

You can point me to your self-serving rant all you want. All you want to do is been to be “tolerant” of your “aggressors” as far as possible yo justify your hatred which is blatant in your posts.

I’m guessing deep-seated inferiority complex. You hate whites because you yourself are not and can never be white. You assume that all are the same and that all have the same opportunities. That is American arrogance.

In ecology and geography (fauna, plants, etc…), yes. But when talking of human beings, the indigenous people = the original peoples of the region.
That’s why white descendants of Englishmen (and other Europeans) are NOT considered indigenous in Australia, despite them not being European, being “born and raised” in Australia and having their own culture.
By the way, according to your reasoning, I suppose that white Americans too are indigenous to North Americas, right?
Regarding the Boers:

Afrikaners (including the Boer subgroup) are a Germanic ethnic group in Southern Africa descended from Dutch (including Flemish),French and German settlers whose native tongue is Afrikaans: a Germanic language which derives primarily from 17th century Dutch , and a variety of other languages.

1. What is the “scientifically accepted consensus”? The idea that “Caucasians” (an unscientific term) populated N. Africa prior to 3000 BC has never been proven. It may be an “accepted consensus” by some, but it hasn’t been “scientifically” proven. Besides, genetics disproves the definition of the antiquated term, “Caucasoid.”

The genetic study you referenced only sampled different living individuals with the u6 subclades in an attempt to HYPOTHESIZE the origin of a proto-u6 marker. The facts in the study were the results of the genetic sampling. The rest about origins and history is unsubstantiated.

2. Your question, “What kind of Africans were the ancient Egyptians” shows a basic lack of understanding about that civilisation. “Egypt” or Ha Ka Ptah was only part of the empire called Ta-Merry. The entire empire contained 42 different nomes (sepats) with varying cultural practices and identities. By 3000 BC, all of them were given a specific number, starting with number 1 in Ta-Seti, the southernmost sepat.

Since Bes (the childbirth deity) and Ptah (who supposedly created the world) are the oldest deities of that region and they are both portrayed as dwarfs, we can deduce that “pygmies” or Batwa were the pioneers. It’s also interesting that “Ptah” and “Batwa” are phoenetically similar.

But one thing is certain, the oldest archaeological evidence of the foundations of dynastic “Egyptian” culture comes from the region well to the south, (again, see Wadi Kubbaniya, Jebel Sahaba, Wadi Halfa, et al. Thus I don’t know why, with no evidence, you are so compelled to suggest some Asian influence.

3. It depends on what part of “ancient history” you are talking about. The first migration out of Africa, according to archaeological evidence, occurred between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago–so Africans populated both Europe and Asia at that time.

I gather your real question is what was the first empire and what was its extent. We have archaeological evidence that Mentuhotep II (c. 2000 BC) went as far south as Lake Chad and there is a 5000 year old “Egyptian” tomb in Israel. We also see temples in Iran (e.g. Persopolis c. 500 BC) that are very similar in style to “Egyptian” architecture. We are also told by several ancient historians that many Africans colonised the world. For example, Herodotus said, ” the Egyptians said they believed that the Colchians were a portion of the army of Sesostris.” Both Diodorus and Strabo’s accounts were consistent with this.

President explained why in a very subtle way, when faced with a question on a talk show. He basically -but very subtly- told his interviewer that this is a racist country with a colonial mindset, and that “he” didn’t call himself that, but that this society called himself that.

“No, when you take away their life they die.”… Now, that’s was a bright statement, wasn’t it ? You know very well what I meant, Someguy.

As well as here:

“even though I suggest that we do not use the racial references to analyze antiquity, I am not saying that I don’t care about the color of the people we are referring to”

One, I was replying to Sam, in the context of his post. Two, I position myself outside of “race”, not outside of ACTUAL skin colors, ranging from very light beige to very dark brown, which are DESCRIPTIVE, I’m not positioning myself within colors as in “races” -white, black, yellow, red-, and I’m pretty you did get that too, which are IDEOLOGICAL.

You ask me this:
“Can you explain this, because it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. If you don’t believe in racial profiling, why should you care what color the Ancient Egyptians were? Do you want to ban the racial system or not? Do you wish for a color coded system, which is basically the same thing?”

I hope my explanation above is clear.
Racial profiling is a tool of racism, that is based on racial definitions (very different ones sometimes from one country to the other) linked to development of colonial rules.
Caring about the COLORs of the skins of people who have been debased and looked down upon is NOT racial profiling. It is simply describing.
You understand very well that I think we should find ways to not refer to the racial system (we know very well what the effects have been and are, and they were purposely so), and you do get what I mean.
I NEVER implied that I “wish for a color coded system”, don’t put words or ideas in my mouth and minds, I’m saying that Ancient Egyptians were Africans AND dark-skinned (dark-skinned, that’s not a color) and that THIS is contrary to what Eurocentrists want us to believe.

You also know very well that it is very difficult to navigate those topics and remain factual, because they are deeply if not totally polluted by the ideology of race.

I think you’d better take care of racists and argue with them (and that is damn difficult, because you’re battling with a deeply rooted belief) than play little rhetorical games with people who you know (since you said “You are misunderstanding my intention. I am playing “devil’s advocate”) are sincere in their intentions.

When I said if you take “whiteness” away from “whites” (that is “white-minded” people), they die, I think you understood what I meant. Our identity is what we are. They don’t know that they have a “who” that is deeper than their racial definition, the “what” that they take as their self to a point that they battle others over it. They do die psychologically if you scratch that part of them. Under is void.

As I replied to Someguy, this is not easy stuff to use, explain or around. There is a different with actual observation and description, and ideology. That is why racism works so well, as a matter of fact, because it has based itself on ideas and concepts that “seems” descriptive, but are not.

That Sheba described herself as “black” was descriptive. She was obviously not using 18th century Euro-centrists reference… 😉

I am a European and I want to take care of the BS my ancestors left with us. I have spent the last twenty-five years learning about it, observing the effects, being disgusted and determined to teach about it. Let me do that.

That Afro-descendents wish to feel pride in their “blackness” is something I let them deal with. I think – and that is just my humble opinion- that it is a mistake to claim the words the racists labeled them with. I think it is more than a mistake, I think it’s a trap. Because in a white supremacist world, it’s like sliding the cover of the trap over your head. I think it is exactly what racists wanted them to do. But I don’t have lessons to give, just an opinion to express.

There are Africans and Afro-descendents who claim the opposite. Who say “those words are plantation talk and we should not use them for our sake and our psychological sanity”. They know that those words are the engines of racism. Take them away from the ideology, and what are you left with ?

My point is, let me fight those racists by diluting, powdering, destroying THEIR weapons. Using their weapons to fight is like fighting an enemy with the weapons he knows because he created them.

That’s how I see the fight against racism. Recognizing people for who they are or who their (mythical or not) ancestors were, not *what* they were called by racists.

Why are you arguing with me in the first place. I understand what you’re trying to say. I’m not saying I necessarily disagree. I didn’t start this argument, you did. I just think that trying to re-define language and terms, instead of fixing the problems directly, is a waste of time, effort and energy.

Someguy, you are the one who reacted to my comments, above, so why are you asking me this: “Why are you arguing with me in the first place.”

I don’t like the little game you play. I perceive it as manipulative. I have to much experience of it to continue arguing. I don’t like it when someone tries to imply things about me that he doesn’t know and to destroy my “personality” on a site/blog where I find a friendly and interesting place to express myself (which I find very seldom on that topic).

I know you know very well what I am saying and the “because you don’t realize that your own personal biases are so ingrained” is the type of phrase that sounds like a sentence from someone who has adopted the role of a judge or a psychiatrist. I realize very well who I am, thank you.

You are writing comments on a blog, AND complaining that someone argues with you, whereas you are commenting on that person’s comments !

If you think discussing with me is a “waste of time, effort and energy”, please be so kind to find other people to exchange with. That will spare us wasted time, indeed.

Cornlia, the racists are just going to take any words you think are better and figure out how to use them….that happens now…

Why dont you let black people figure out what is best for them on an individual basis? …there is obviously a lot of differant opinion on this and no total group agreement

You got Ethiopia, a very cross culture country in Africa and I brought in a thread with various opinions exactly from Ethiopians about whether its ok to self identify with “black”…I even brought in another Ethiopian sure he wanted to be known as black, then Roxanne sais that she doesnt like to define things like that…so, just from Ethiopia, there is differance of opinion on this…that is all people can really have about it…an opinion and what they want to identify themselves as

When people start saying what the rules should be , and they really dont speak for everyone, it can be creepy…

B R, if you read what I said what you ask me to do: “Why dont you let black people figure out what is best for them on an individual basis?”

I said this: “That Afro-descendents wish to feel pride in their “blackness” is something I let them deal with” and “But I don’t have lessons to give, just an opinion to express.”

I have noticed, all this time (years), that I have been discussing this topic, one thing:

“Don’t touch it”. Don’t touch race. Leave it alone. Why do you want to touch it ? Why do you want to attack it ?
What is everyone afraid of ? Losing their identity ? Probably. I don’t think it will be a great loss if it’s race. It will be a liberation rather. From the racists. They won’t have anything to attack anymore.

Well, the fact is, I think that we must attack racism at its roots. They are races. That’s all. That’s what I think.

Cornlia, well that is my point, everyone is entitled to their opinion , and to be understood for their intent when using words, and, I respect what you are saying, and , its been said many times on this blog , about how “race” was invented to rationalise slavery.And, I have no argument with that, and, I also see we are dealing with discriptions of things and using English, which is a very limited language to describe people in Africa.

Again, for me, just “we are Africans”, is something I can understand also but, as someone living in Brazil, describing all the people down on this contintent as “South Ameicans” , means what makes Brazil really special is totaly lost in that description…

Describing by nation, is strange also, since , many of these countries were named by the colonisers and more important, some change names and boundries, so, that is self explanatory why just national self identity can not be fullfilling in all cases

And, my biggest concern about abandoning referances to hues of people is, again, guarenteed, the darker hued people will get lost in the shuffle and not really understood for the contributions to humanity that they have made…something that seems to not be very defined out here these days, people in this discusion cant really define it very well…”pre colonial”, roxannes suggestion, does help in some ways, but, all pre colonial Africans did not represent this culture (these people have to be recognised for much more than just as hunter gatherers or pastoril farmers, or regugees or who were sought after for slavery)…but, many many do have tie ins with this culture, from east to west and south , in a big way and north also, but, is way more influenced by Arab culture and Islamic culture…Islamic culture also is found in various places in Africa, but, it has buried over and destroyed in many cases, what the values are of the cultures that were before it…same with the Christian religion where that is…

So, Cornlia, its not about “dont touch it…” with me, by all means address and say what you want, but, you have to also have a way to give credit for the humanity and the contributions to civilisation that many cultures of the darker hued people in Africa have made and we need a way to describe those contributions…and who the people were…in some cases, the people who the HBDers are saying are inferiour….I dont defend by saying those people dont have a race , even if I beleive that underneath , I defend them by saying ” … look at their genius , their humanity , look at what they have contributed to civilisation and then try to tell me they are inferior…”

White people introduced this white supremacy racism but they don’t want POC to address it by asserting the worth of darker people. It is defined as racist to do that. That is typical. White people have long held the handle of this racism blade and used it to powerful effect to cut through cultures and nations. The solution, according to white people, is to pretend that the wounds aren’t there to be stitched up. Let’s continue as if nothing happened while maggots and gangrene set in. “Affirmation action?” Bad!!! That’s “reverse racism”! Healing of wounds? We can’t have that! The last thing we want to do is “reverse” racism. But I suppose there is progress in admitting that the centuries during which most black people were denied even basic education was forward racism.

“Color doesn’t matter” is something one can say only when your color doesn’t hinder you. Which is seldom the case for black people when they live among whites whether as a demographic minority (say USA after 1900) or a majority (say South Africa). White (supremacy) racism is a very predictable phenomenon and the attitudes that accompany it have been very relevant in shaping our world. They know the power of racial identity as a tool for organizing people especially when it comes to unleashing aggression. The eventual emergence of a “black identity” was an unintended consequence of white racism which created a shared experience of racial oppression among black people inasmuch as it created a shared (often vicarious) experience of power among whites. What is the fundamental difference in popular message between Martin Luther King and Malcom X? Wasn’t it that one subordinated a black identity to an American one while the other did the reverse. Which one got more support (still shot dead though); which one has a “day”?

Now back to the race of ancient people. I think it is usually accepted that the ancient Greeks were white and many people who claim not to care about color would cry bloody murder if people suggested they were not. But to suggest that a group of ancient Africans were black people is an unacceptable “playing of the race card”. It is all part of the process of identity denial also manifested in renaming, and religious “conversion”. Even some white people who claim to be “not racist” get uncomfortable when black people identity with other black people whether geographically or historically separated. Never mind the fact that white people do it all the time! Anyone who studied “western history” in college will know how much “we” owe to the Greeks. Ancient Egypt, which is more African the farther back you go, poses a problem but nothing a little convenient color-blindedness (or even outright whitening) can’t fix!

The bottom line is that white people decide who is white and, by exclusion, who is not. In America there has long been the “one drop rule” whereas South Africa gives mixed “coloureds” a separate category. Think about demographics and why this makes sense. Who does it serve in each case? TBH, I’d rather not have to consider these things. But I don’t have the hue that allows ignorance to be a self-serving strategy. C’est la vie.

“White people introduced this white supremacy racism but they don’t want POC to address it by asserting the worth of darker people. It is defined as racist to do that. That is typical. White people have long held the handle of this racism blade and used it to powerful effect to cut through cultures and nations. The solution, according to white people, is to pretend that the wounds aren’t there to be stitched up. Let’s continue as if nothing happened while maggots and gangrene set in.”

– – –

I agree with your comment in its entirety — the above quoted excerpt, I couldn’t have phrased any better myself. Great observations, as usual, Origin!

Since Bes (the childbirth deity) and Ptah (who supposedly created the world) are the oldest deities of that region and they are both portrayed as dwarfs, we can deduce that “pygmies” or Batwa were the pioneers. It’s also interesting that “Ptah” and “Batwa” are phoenetically similar.

Er, yeah, ok… that doesn’t sound absolutely unscientific at all. I think this is the point at which I stop trying to argue with you as it is a waste of time.

I never said it was “scientific”…i provided cultural and historical information in the absence of “scientific” evidence of the genetic origins of the original inhabitants of the Lower Nile.

But, nice diversion from the topic, Sensation. I guess that must somehow negate the archaeological evidence i provided, even though you have yet to provide any proof for your claims of some Asian origin or influence.

BR you said: ” you have to also have a way to give credit for the humanity and the contributions to civilisation that many cultures of the darker hued people in Africa have made and we need a way to describe those contributions…and who the people were…in some cases, the people who the HBDers are saying are inferiour….I dont defend by saying those people dont have a race , even if I beleive that underneath , I defend them by saying ” … look at their genius , their humanity , look at what they have contributed to civilisation and then try to tell me they are inferior…””

I’m asking: did I say ANYTHING different from that ?

WHY do I have to call dark-skinned people “black” when it suffices to say “dark-skinned”, “very dark-skinned”, “dark-skinned African” ? Why ?
To Euro-centric egyptologists, it is enough. They say Egyptians were leucoderm, I say no, they were dark-skinned. To racists/white supremacists, who claim against all odds that Ancient Egyptians were “white”, it is enough to say, no, they were dark-skinned. Some come up with dark-skinned whites, whatever, let them talk. It’s a belief, it’s a mental distortion, you’ll never get them to believe otherwise, unless their mental illness cures. It has to come from them.

So, why do I have to call myself “white” ? Because the theory of races said so. And I don’t believe that the theory of races is right. It is funny how people are so attached to it. Really, what is the problem if I don’t call myself “white” ? Who does it bother if not racists ? I don’t care what they think. I don’t call myself white, period. Whiteness is an illusion.

Of course, I know how that illusion has had consequences ! But there is a moment when we need to stop being manipulated by this belief ! There is a moment when we need to say, stop, I don’t believe your BS, period. I

think the problem here on this blog and elsewhere on the net is that the American vision of race dominates conversations. Americans need to know that IT IS NOT THE CASE elsewhere. Tell a French person he or she is Caucasian, he/she’s gonna look at you like, huh, WTH is he/she calling me ? There is NO WAY he/she will know what you are referring to.
The first time i heard it, I laughed. I was liked, what ? What did you just call me ? And then I saw that person was serious. And I have had to explain to Americans many times, that no, not everybody with a light-skin on this planet defines him/herself as Caucasian. Caucasians live in the Caucasus, and the fact that naturalists and then racists designated light-skinned people as “Caucasian” or “white” doesn’t mean we have to agree to it ! There is actually no genetic proof that all Europeans descend from “Ancient Caucasians” ! They chose the term for reasons that had nothing to do with genetics (see The History of White People by Neil Irving Painter for more detail).

To come back to your comment, I believe Africans, Asians, everybody around this planet achieved things, great, not so great, greater than the rest, and obviously dark-skinned Africans in Ancient Egypt were amongst those who achieved some of the greatest things. And I am among the people who will remind others, for instance, that Yes, Egypt is ACTUALLY in African, yes, yes, didn’t you notice ? And yes, Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned.

But I don’t have to call Ancient Egyptians “black” and myself “white” for that.

Egyptians were great people, dark-skinned people, Egypt is in Africa and that matters.

Many Afro-centrists these days refer to dark skinned Africans as Kemit, Kamit, Kemet, etc. They don’t use the term black. Some African thinkers do not use racial terms that they coin “plantation talk” (“vocabulaire de la plantation”). They are trying to create a new approach to thinking African history with African philosophy and African psychology, and explain that one step to free African thought is to free it from racial thought. They actually battle against the tendency to create words in African languages as translation of racial terms, which do not exist in those languages, simply because Africans didn’t invent the concept…

I had not read any of those before I started thinking what I think. I have understood very early how wrong racial rhetoric is simply because it’s used to separate. I realize it simply by observing. When you say “dark-skinned, light-skinned, brown colored, curly haired, straight-haired, brown-eyed, beige-skinned, dark-brown, you observe and describe.
When you say “white”, “black”, “yellow”, “red”, you separate humans into groups that have specificities applied to them by the theory of races. These are not skin colors. That people may have used “white”, “black” to describe very light-skinned or very dark-skinned people is not the same. Races are over-simplifications that have been erected into concepts.
Little children who have not been told about race do not (never) define themselves racially. They color people their actual colors in drawings and paintings. In the US, children are told very early on what their “race” is. In many other places, they don’t know what “race” is. Americans should really realize that their approach and vision is very very special. Vey shocking too, for an outsider who approaches American culture with a naive and open eye. For instance, the new president of France had among his proposals to remove the word “race” from the first article of the Constitution. This is not understood in the US. And in France, it is not understood that you have to state your race when you fill out official forms. It is outrageous and sound uncivilized to a French reader…

So don’t believe (not necessarily you BR) that “race” is a concept that is universal… It is a colonial concept that is found and used to various degrees in former or present colonial settings (in the French West Indies, still bery much, because the colonial setting is still alive).

It is really strange to me to realize that most people do not see that when you say “white”, you automatically set apart from “black”. You don’t allow for unity. Those words weren’t used for description. Otherwise we would be called beige and brown. There is a difference between actual colors, features, and predetermined definitions and labeling that group together people that have nothing in common, except their phenotype. I realize that some people really get lost when you take that away from them. It acts as a frame that holds things together.

I know that there are people (I have read some on this blog) like Cheik Anta Diop, who think/thought (because they fear/ed it) that doing away with races means “color-blindness” (when it is not about colors, but races…), and is somehow a threat to the reality of the history of dark-skinned people, as you are implying. They think only racial unity will help. I think it is a distortion of racial thought that is dangerous, because political unity doesn’t mean the dilution of multiple cultures into one “race”. That would mean doing exactly what racists have hoped for.

I think we need to free ourselves from the grip of race because it is the tool of the racists.

Most people continue to confuse “skin color” with “race”. That is exactly what racists count on.

If you (or others) don’t agree with that, no problem. But please do not imply things from what I say.
I think Africans and everyone else with a dark skin must be recognized for WHO they are and were, or not for WHAT they were designated to be by others, who planned to dominate them and did so.

That is only what I think, and if people feel threatened by it, they need to look at why they feel threatened, because personally, I don’t imagine myself as a great threat to anyone. I’m just proposing ideas to participate in the destruction of the idea of race. It’s not very American, I know. But it’s a way to go. And it means learning everyone’s history.

For sure its not threatening for me…i can easily use things like “dark skinned people” , “pre colonial Africans”, and, if Im with people who describe things as “black” or “sub Sahara”, I have no problem communicating the thoughts about concepts I am trying to get across with them using the terms they define , it makes me no differance…

By the way, I dont agree this is just an American thing, Origin explained it well, and, for example, they just passed racial quotas down in Brazil to guarentee “black” ” negros em portugues” and “brown” “pardos em portugues” people can get into universities that had percentage numbers unbeleivably low

Despite the ideology against quotas or the misconception that this is American and horrible, they have to pass these laws because the “white ” Brazilians arnt giving up their power for anything

Not only that, I have brought in various posts from Ethiopians who identified themselves as black, but, I want to note Roxanne is Ethiopian and she thinks the opisite , only to point out that no, this is not just something in the USA…I think its best to just be honest about this, even if some of the thought process did come from the USA, its not unique to there at all…is this some hang up to always just blame it on the USA?

Their view of Jamaica is generally not much better. They thik of here as a paradise of mangoes and breadfruit aplenty, with the countryside a paradise for black people. And don’t let me start on Brazil…..

It basically outlines the consensus of most mainstream experts on the prehistory of Africa. Diamond’s use of the terms “black” and “white” are simplistic, but the terms are proxies for what used to be termed “Negroid” and “Caucasoid”.

@ resjan:
Since I’m giving up arguing with you, you can read Diamond’s work and take that as a summation my views, more or less, on the peopling of Africa. And I’m sure you’ll take it as some kind of victory that I don’t wish to debate you anymore, but it’s really an acknowledgement that it’s a waste of my time.

Hi BR, of course, I will not jump on people in conversations if they use racial terms… But here is a place (that I discovered recently) where people are willing to discuss such ideas. That’s why I do it… And I guessed you were one of them. 😉
I simply think that this is regularly swept under the carpet and it shouldn’t, because they are the basis of the idea of race…
And sure, it is not “just” an American thing. But the US is the place I know with France… Both are racist countries with colonial pasts, but in different ways and therefore with different consequences.
I don’t know enough about the various countries in South America to say anything. I think you have to have had a personal experience of a place to really know on that topic and to have interacted with all kinds of people to get an insight.

If it sounded like it that I blamed it only the USA, I’m sorry, it wasn’t my intention. I think I said that many of the blogs and sites that discuss this topic are American, and as such bring the American vision of it in to the discussion, and I think it “narrows” it.

However, I think it is very interesting to be able to discuss it with people from all over and I will navigate Abagond more in the next weeks to check out what there is and who’s there.

I wasn’t aware of the quotas in Brazil. Back in 1992, I wrote a crossfire section on the commemoration of the quincentenary of the “Discovery of America” and I actually took the example of Brazil to explain that Africans had been treated badly all over the Americas. I wanted to say things without being too harsh on my hosts… as I was a Teaching Assistant in an US university…

It is a pity one has to resort to quotas, because they actually reinforce the idea that races are “for real”, but what else to do in this state of things ? I hope your quotas actually have an impact, because it doesn’t seem it has been the case so much in the US, unfortunately.

I believe we should start with imposing history and sociology courses on what race is so that kids know more about it than just what they are told by media, parents and society…

Obrigada pela resposta… I once learnt Brazilian. Wish I had had time to continue… I love the language.

Cornlia, just to clarify , Im an American living in Brazil for 26 years now….tudo bom…

Of course, its great to have a diolougue about these subjects , and, I do understand where you are coming from , except , unfortunatly the racists are going to know how to dribble phrases like “dark hue” also, and run their bs

I even forgot to say that Brazilians have phrases like “my black” they use all the time , so it is in their Portuguese also

I cant speak for the Caribean, but, I think Brazil is a huge country with an enormous slave past, so like the USA , they have to deal with these things that have serious effect on society…the white Brazilians arnt going to give it up, the laws have to be implemented to bring some kind of fair integrataion into society

Im only speaking about this to not let semantics get in the way about talking about Africa…and as I stated, Im willing to change my semantics to fit into the conversation with the person Im talking about, because these concepts Im talking about , dont have to be fenced in by words

Im much more interested in looking at the docu youtube about the Pygmies I brought in and see how they had things like one mate for their life not multiple wives, they welcome the people with giving them water, and there was one guy with his portable drum kit that he could set up on the go…which showed these hunter gatherers retained a powerful drum culture,,,that sais so much more about them as a people than just hunter gatherers,,,,and, their drum culture is a lot like the taller people around them even though they are of a really differant genetic,,,yet, they have very similar phenotype features and similar drum culture concepts,,,,who influenced who ? or was it mutual

This is real ancient culture…Egyption records as far back as 3000 bc mentioned a small man who could dance and sing from the interior, that just shows this culture is much older than that

“Egyption records as far back as 3000 bc mentioned a small man who could dance and sing from the interior, that just shows this culture is much older than that”

I tried explaining that ancient Egyptians’ oldest deities (Bes and Ptah) are also dwarfs to explain a possible link to “pygmies” (Batwa). But then I was reminded of a letter from Pepi II (c. 2278 – 2184 BC) to Harkhuf, stating:

“You said in this letter of yours that you have brought a pygmy, of divine dances, from the land of the horizon-dwellers, like the one that the seal-bearer Bawerdjed brought from Punt in the time of king Isesi….When he goes to bed at night, get trusty men to lie all round him in his hammock. Inspect ten times a night ! My Majesty longs to see this pygmy more than all the treasures of Sinai and Punt !”

No resjan, I can’t be bothered arguing with you because you would clearly prefer stories about gods to actual science.
You need to re-read the articles you linked to that you think supports your perspective, btw. The first one clearly states that the majority of sub-Saharan DNA in Saudi Arabs is from female slaves. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180338/)

@Eurasian Sensation
I thought you were already done arguing…so why are you back?

Again, you need to learn to discern facts from speculation. The facts are the findings of the genetic study…all else is speculation.

The article does not even pretend to know how the African genes got into Arabia, it speculates. “Taken together, these results are consistent with substantial migration from eastern Africa into Arabia, AT LEAST IN PART as a result of the Arab slave trade…”

Did you get that? “IN PART”…..WHERE DOES IT SAY a “majority” as you’ve miscontrued? It is a HYPOTHESIS.

I know there were/still are African slaves in Arabia, just as surely as there were/still are European ones, but this is relatively recent history, and the article even says that these ties supposedly go back to the “7th millennium BC.”

To clarify: I referenced the article to point to the fact that genetically speaking, many Arabians, especially south Arabians share “sub-saharan” African genes, in response to your belief that Ethiopians are so much unlike other “sub-saharan” Africans and so much like Arabians.

If you read that article well, you’d see that most Yemenis sampled are more genetically close to the West African samples than they are to the sampled Ethiopians.

Resjan, yes, I noted that you mentioned that about the dwarf gods , and, I thought it was relevant…I apreciete your insight

The Pygmies have so many secrets to ancient Africa…the youtubes Ive brought in have blown my mind…that youtube of the pregnant women dancing to a groove that has emerged in Cuba as a rumba is unbeleivable tangent evidence of genuis and the power of it…what strenght to have lasted and emerged as a popular culture with power, all the way into this last century

I say the real story about ancient Africa has so much to be discovered….they just found cave paintings in Europe that are 20,000 years older than they thought, and, the notion of humans painting is a major developement in human evolution (imagine how far back they went in Africa?)…Imagine what is still buried in Africa that could tell us what was really happening back then ?

Yes, you’re right that there’s so much undiscovered, but so much has already been discovered that just isn’t talked about or taught in western academia. There’s evidence of 100,000 year-old artwork in South Africa, evidence of mining that goes back 45,000 years and mathematics that goes back 35,000 years. There are also thousands of stone circles spanning from South Africa to Tanzania that few are willing to investigate or openly discuss..the only westerner I know who talks about these stone ruins credits aliens….

So, it’s not just a matter of discovering, rather researching and bringing about awareness.

Ha ha Resjan, this “the only westerner I know who talks about these stone ruins credits aliens…. ” reminds me of the various origins given to the giant Olmec stone heads in Ivan Van Sertima’s book ‘They came before Columbus”. He makes a list of the “possible” origins given by western researchers, and one of them is “brought there by Aliens”…

@Cornlia
Funny, but true. He (Michael Tellinger) has done extensive research and has brought awareness of this ancient stone metropolis in SE Africa (remember that British settlers of the late 1800s deliberately hid much of this) , but he credits a Sumerian extraterrestrial for these ruins. After concluding that extensive knowledge of astronomy was used to constuct these structures, he simply could not believe that Africans were capable of such (even though the world’s oldest evidence of astronomy is found in Africa). Had these ruins been discovered in Europe, needless to say that they would be wholly European, and nothing else! That is the bias we’re up against

I recall Van Sertima saying something like “we have to produce lots of evidence to prove African involvement but they only need one piece of evidence to prove European involvement.” But, now, we all know that one of the oldest skeletons found in the Americas (Brazil) resembles an African http://bit.ly/KRJ4Yb, and the oldest skeleton was found in the Caribbean sea (coincidentally on the current oceanic current from W. Africa) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080903-oldest-skeletons.html…pointing to migration across the Atlantic from Africa, not from the Bering Strait or outer space

Resjan , yes, the report I got off Kwamla’s site was this one you are talking about, I think…I just disreguard the extra terrestial aspects…they try to push that on the Egyption pyramids too…

There are some things that are talked about on other documentaries, that really can make you think, like, if you draw a straight line from Easter Island to the Egyption pyramids, you pass through some ancient ruins on the coast of Peru , the Nasca lines, then through some ruins in mexico, and, when it crosses the Atlantic it goes through Dogon territory, and then the Pyramids…if you continue the line as a circle through the globe , the point at the top of the pi of the circle , actualy touches the magnetic north pole that is differant than the north pole we talk about…and the whole circle touches various other ruins before it gets back to Easter Island and these ruins , in position with the others, show the “golden number”….all coincidence ? probably, but, if not, it shows unbeleivable knowledge of the earth being round and mathamatical principles that are very advanced…Im not one who beleives in the alian stuff, but, all Im saying is that there are some really unbeleivable mysteries out there from ancient times

Point well taken. Since the great pyramids are supposedly located on the earth’s energetic center (and most other ancient ruins are on grid lines), I think it’s evidence of ancient knowledge about the same.

There’s no way for me to verify whether or not extraterrestrials have visited, but we can easily verify with archaeological evidence the DEVELOPMENT of mathematics, science and astronomy in Africa.

Its quite intriguing for me to read conversations about the technological achievements of ancient African civilizations and how they find it difficult to attribute these discoveries to the people themselves.But what is even more intriguing is how we have all been so successfully duped into believing or not questioning the FACT that Extra-terrestrial beings have had NO influence in shaping or forming our collective human existence.

My own research has shown its not possible to go back thousands of years into ancient African history and not examine this possibility.

“…“we have to produce lots of evidence to prove African involvement but they only need one piece of evidence to prove European involvement”, it irritates me equally, that for some, the idea persists that African’s intellectual achievement / civilization becomes only possible with the intervention of extra-terrestrials..”

This is simply because we have allowed ourselves to become locked into the various accounts of how the world was formed and we came into existence told from a narrow and limiting perspective. A standard perspective which suits and is geared to what we’ve been collectively educated to believe are the default people on this planet. – White people. When they are not!

Clearly many ancient civilizations held a much more inclusive and cosmic perspective. The historical evidence when taken together shows this to be the case. But again just like the continuing existence of Racism some of us feel reluctant in ourselves to entertain or even consider this view point.

One point that stands out in my mind is how we never hear about the Dogons having great knowledge of the stars, equal to the Egyptions,and that they and the other people to the South , that I got off your site, built calenders and constructions that acnowledged the equinox and rotations of the stars in 26,000 year cycles

Who I heard this from is you, and some other people on here (Wilson, Satan etc)

This amounts to what seems like a heavy snow job in our history books in the west…no pun intended

“But again just like the continuing existence of Racism some of us feel reluctant in ourselves to entertain or even consider this view point.

Now why is that?”

*******

LOL

Perhaps because the last thing Africans and descendants of Africans need to fathom/think about (on top of this current global white systemic supremacy) is the possibility that any of these so-call Extraterrestrial/Cosmic visitors may be *white!*

Lol!!! You’re right! And thats exactly how they are portrayed in all the SF movies and investigations. The fact is it would be even worse to have to contend with the reality that ALL ETs are white! They are not!

But in truth the reality is even weirder than that! They are all colours imaginable!

“…This amounts to what seems like a heavy snow job in our history books in the west…no pun intended…”

As you’re discovering thats exactly what was intended. You have to learn to explore and do your own research rather than allow yourself to be locked into the false reality matrix of Western society, science, religion, history, economics and culture.

Kwamla, based on some documentaries Ive seen that were pretty deep, I do want to keep an open mind to any posibilities of some body of knowledge that would understand pi and the golden number and that the world is round from the ancients, and, even the posibility of something from space…we are all stardust , after all , anyway. And, there is information that boggles the mind in the world, like ancient veda text from san script in India that talks about “gods” who could fly in machines with fire out the back..look at the Nasca lines, what was that for? You can only make out what it is from high in the air….unbeleivable heavy objects lifted for long distances etc

Yet, at the same time, what I never lose vision of and firmness is, the cultures that I brought in on youtube , and, what some of the gifts that the ancient Africans have given us…

I see that pygmie youtube of the pregnant women moving in a circle around a women playing what has evolved in our modern day world as a rumba, and they are singing the most enchanting melody unfettered by any western or Arabian scale , and, I understand these people knew something about how to deal with pregnancy that rivals any modern classes the west gives to pregnant women about how to prepare for the baby coming. They knew how to put the women in an alpha state to help deal with the uncomfortability…I tell you, I get weak in the knees seeing that. The blind racists arnt going to understand the absolute incredible fact that here is an ancient custom that is meant to naturaly help the woman and with a beat that has been passed down all the way through repressive slavery that really tried to destroy that culture , that came out as a major cultural expresion in Cuba with world wide popularity…

The things we could learn from those ancient African cultures are nothing short of profound and genius and it blows my mind…but, for now, its buried treasure….waiting to be discovered…I think Dr ani knows something about things like that

You said: “it irritates me equally, that for some, the idea persists that African’s intellectual achievement / civilization becomes only possible with the intervention of extra-terrestrials.”

Personally, I’m done with being irritated with those dummies. I just laugh at them or ignore them. It’s a waste of time to bother even telling them anything. They have such mental disorders to deal with, let them drown in their illusions while we advance in reality.

We need to support real work, African researchers and others who really do research.

Funny–so everyone can have different ethnic groups making up their race except black people. Whites can be Norse or English, Armenian; Asians can be Filipino, Hmong, Japanese; Native Americans can be Eskimo, Quechua. All varieties. But black people can only have the parts of Africa that can be seen in the majority of [phenotyping] genes within black Americans or West Indians.

Egyptians can’t be an ethnic group of the black race; I’ve seen people question Ethiopians, too–now San people and Pygmies can’t be black either!

White supremacists never cease to amaze me with their tricks. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sickening… Yes, the taking away of certain black people from all black people is definitely used to denigrate the ones who found themselves enslaved in the New World. No doubt about it.

As a general remark to your remark: I see what you’re saying, but the only problem is that racial reference (putting a whole bunch of different people(s) in the same “racial” bag) is exactly what white supremacy/racism does. Why would you want it ?

The peoples of Africa are very varied and different. They have cultural, genetic, linguistic and other features in common and some they don’t share. Why would *you* want to define them on the line stated by race theoreticians ?

I don’t know if you understand French, but here is this man, who is Congolese, a researcher now living in Canada. He clearly states that Africans and all other peoples “named” by racists under racial labels should refrain from using racial labeling. I know it angers some, but it is a fact that Europeans invented races in an attempt to make them seem natural and reflecting a certain “character” that applies to all the people that belong to that “race”.

White supremacists hate it when other people remind them of the fallacy of the attempt at making “race” a natural fact. They always try to dismiss anti-racist claims by stating that “races existed before the theory of races”.

Why would you state the same claim (though in a different way and for a different reason) ? I have noticed that many African-Americans follow that line of thought, which I can understand on the one hand, since African-Americans “had to” build their identity the ‘black” racial reference, so socially it has its relevance inside a racist system like the US.

But, on the other hand, why they would support racial labeling and classifying “absolutely” (in the sense that it supposedly is a “truth”), is something I still have to understand.
Do you see what I mean ?
(I know that there are some posters here who think I am *crazy* for asking those questions, but I think they are questions to ask if you really want to understand how racism actually works and perpetuates itself. They are difficult questions because they rub on personal identities and huge taboos…)
Peace

I was just replying to the blog entry, in general, not to anyone’s comment specifically.

I understand what you’re saying and I do agree with you. We are more accurately defined by being a member of the human species than by “races”, which, for the record, I believe in the concept of race more as a philosophical point than a scientific one. It’s not to say that what makes you look black or white or prone to ethnically-linked diseases are not genetically based; they are.

But my point was that IF we have this concept of race, with the sub-category of that being ethnicity, and we’re going to be stuck with it, it should be par for the course to also allow black people just as many diverse ethnic backgrounds as you allowed with whites, Asians, Native Americans, etc. It’s ridiculous to simply say black is just this but not those and never, ever that while whites or Asians, for example, are this and that and everything in between.

Likewise, if we dismantled the racial categories all together, it would mean that people are just people who look different, just like swarthy brunettes are different from fair redheads. It would also mean that white people would have to stop claiming Egypt… they might not like that one.

Cornlia, no one thinks you are crazy, there are 4 other people on this thread who have said the same thing..

What is perplexing to me is how you think that is the solution to neutralising the white racists…?You dont know white racists if you think that would work, they are very adept at shifting gears and shifting their semantics to try to get what they want…

Its a word, a semantic, a metaphor, it doesnt really describe the reality but it is in a context that many people understand since people like Malcolm X brought a differant context of it and many people throughout the world latched on to it also. The same way that a word like “apartheid” gained new awareness in the context of the violent struggle that went on in South Africa…most people wouldnt even know the word if it hadnt been used in that context…

Here is the problem, for the people who dont like the usage of that word, I think its great if you dont use it, but, why are you superimposing your value on others here as though if they want to use it , they are somehow “wrong”? I dont think the people who object to it here are bringing any more awareness to the table as Malcolm X did, and that is the model most of us are using.

What is the hang up it came out of America? I get that that becomes the real problem here for some people….obviously some Africans do refer to themselves as “black”, and Im more than happy to respect Roxannes desire for her to not want to use it and to not refer to her as black…yet, other Ethiopians did refer to themselves as black…no one can say it is a blanket fact that all Africans dont refer to themselves as “black”.

So, instead of having a deeper discusion of 13,000 years of Africa, we are hung up on quantum semantics about the word “black” …because lots of people are using it who come from America

Cornlia, no one here is going to suggest that you use the word “black”

And, I actualy welcome the suggestions I got from some people about how to phrase ancient Africans with out using “black”, which I intend to do…but, not all the time, there are times in my discusions in trying to get across concepts of the genius of ancient Africa where those terms can be very eficiant and comunicative as to the point Im trying to make.

You know, people like Malcolm X transformed the word “black” to fit their conept and they snapped their whip and the white racists got in line like trained dogs and realised they cant chomp on racists words in public or pronounce the word “nigra” or “coloreds” as well as the “n” word . It dramaticly changed the landscape of how the white racists had to react.Id say that isnt playing into their game , if you ask me

Most white racists are very politicly correct in public exactly because of people like Malcoml X and those concepts, and, people of color all over the world noticed, and some latched on to those concepts also

My question is : what do we do then to get at that ideology ? Because this is linked to the “Psychopathic Racial Personality”, or I prefer, “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”. In the interactions with those individuals, unless you decide you are going to ignore them, you find yourselves forced to interact in their world with their postulates and symbolic. Either you do, or you can’t interact with them. But if you try to interact with them you can but be manipulated by them. Psychiatrists and psychologists know it and when they realize they are dealing with one (if they are not being manipulated already), they throw them out of their offices.

So how do we deal with them ?
I’m proposing a way that doesn’t stem out of void, it stems out my observations, my personal experience (including being manipulated which allowed me to know how it works), my culture, my interactions with others, my readings (but until recently, I deliberately tried not to read too much, except novels, to built my own vision. Now I am in a process of intensive reading, and hopefully in some time of intensive research). One has to have some convictions to be able to do research and prove (or not) one’s point… otherwise there wouldn’t have been many scientific discoveries…

A few points on what you said: “obviously some Africans do refer to themselves as “black”. Definitely. But why do they ? Isn’t it because the ideology summons them to do so ? Europeans have reshaped the thinking patterns on the African continent too. That is why the researcher I quoted is actually working on the topic. He explains in that conversation that there are new words being coined in African languages to fit the racial reference and that make it so, that even after hundreds of years, African languages had managed to keep racial thought out. I think it is a catastrophe because language is who we are deep down as societies. He does to. Others don’t…

I *think* (and who am I ? A little nobody facing a hugely successful ideology) that those words contain more than it seems. I would like, if I can, to really study that to bring some understanding to how this simple words had so much impact. I *think* that the very fact of using them separates. Saying “black” for a certain group of people, “white” for another, “yellow” (have you even seen someone yellow ?) and “red” has this immediate effect of separating categorically and creating walls. If you are “white” you are not “black”, you “cannot” be. This is no bridge. There is no link. Same between all the racial words. Descriptive words, on the other hand, do not have that separating effect. As you said, it’s semantics, but is it only semantics ? I don’t think it is only semantics. I’d like to be able to prove it. If I can, I will.

Just an anecdote to illustrate this;

back in 2002, when LePen reached the second round of the Presidential elections on France, there were huge demonstrations all over the country. On France 2, the French national TV, there was a report in which a young man with Afro-origins said this, while commenting on LePen half-victory: “He reminded me that I was black”.

This can be analyzed taking the Malcolm X take of “race pride”. But it can also be analyzed as “he reminded me that I am supposed to stay where I belong, the “black race”.” This is what I am interested in, how does it work.

Of course, same here, when you say “there are times in my discusions in trying to get across concepts of the genius of ancient Africa where those terms can be very eficiant and comunicative as to the point Im trying to make”… We can obviously not escape the ideology totally (and certainly not in our respective social positions), and it is easier to explain things with people who otherwise would have no idea what we are talking about.

So I agree with you, but please allow me to think that something must be tried to understand how semantics charge ideology with meaning, and as some think, make ideology incarnate itself in the social world.

Hi everyone. What a great discussion, it’s great to see how you have all researched the topic. I would like to add that the switch from hunter gatherer to farming is presented as “progress” by a type of pro-colonialist scientists with an agenda…but we know now that this switch is not determined by “intelligence” but by circumstances, and also that hunters gatherers are healthier and have less negative impact on the environment than farmers and industrialists.
I come from a European country which is just as racist as the next one…but where colour is not defined the way it is in the US/UK (where I live now) because while northerners, in my country, can be pale, blue-eyed etc, southerners can definitely be olive skinned, with very dark eyes (darker than the eyes of some of my African and Asian friends for sure!) and hair. The UK nit-picking race separation shocked and angered me. Plus, they think that asking people their race on forms guarantees equal ops, this is not how the non-white concerned perceive it.
So I conducted my own experiments and I can assert that the way I am “classified” by most so-called white people in the UK depends entirely on how I am dressed, coiffed, made up (not talking skin tone change or even lenses however). This demonstrates how the perception of someone’s colour is based on superficial clues and prejudice. Besides, saying that blond is “white Nordic” only demonstrates ignorance as there are blond haired Australian aborigenes for instance.
I am not averse to talking DNA, genetics etc, but not in terms of races, in terms of retracing History and the routes taken by various groups of human beings so as to understand better who we are as an entire species. And don’t get me started on the survival of the fittest…Darwin never said it the way it has been used and abused!